It’s a common creationist mantra that with the same evidence you can arrive at very different conclusions based on the “assumptions” through which you interpret the evidence. The unstated conclusion is that this means creationists and scientists are working from the same evidence and are thus equally valid approaches. This is the tack taken by a fact-box in a recent Answers in Genesis article on the Ice Age (which recieved a right royal ribbing by The Sensuous Curmudgeon). The fact-box (on the subject of prehistoric stone tools) opens with
Stone tools and other artifacts from the Ice Age do not come with signs on them telling us their age and significance. Depending on your starting assumptions, you can reach very different conclusions, even if you start with the very same facts.
What this (and other such repetitions of the “assumption” mantra) fail to mention is that you’re method also plays a role in the conclusion. The scientific method does its darndest ensure the reliability of its conclusions with testable hypotheses and such; as well as to remove the bias of an individual’s “assumptions.” Conversely the creationist method revels in biased assumptions. For example, elsewhere in the article the authors write
The [ice age] deposits were laid between 2.6 million years and 11,700 years ago…Though this range is clearly not accurate because it lies outside the Bible’s total timeline of 6,000 years
Their rejection of the older dates stems not from evidence, but from their prior belief in the Bible. However, the assumption mantra does get one thing right: you need facts to reach a conclusion as well. Unfortunately creationists are frequently missing these as well. Returning to our fact-box on prehistoric stone tools
Consider one interesting example. Everywhere we find the earliest known stone tools—in Europe, Asia, and Africa—they have the same basic design, called Acheulean tools. This type of tool appears in most Ice Age layers. Then suddenly, near the end, lots of new styles were adopted, such as the smaller Mousterian blades associated with Neanderthals.
If you believe the Ice Age lasted 2.6 million years, then you must assume human beings were making the same basic tools for at least 50,000 generations before any new ideas were invented. That scenario does not quite fit what we know about human ingenuity.
Therefore the earth is young, right?
Oldowan flakes
Well the facts on which this is based is wrong on nearly every count. For starters the earliest stone tools we find in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. is actually the Oldowan. This is a much simpler industry created by hitting one rock with another rock to smash into small, sharp pieces. It first appeared 2.6 million years ago in Africa and was spread across the world as our ancestors migrated out of Africa ~1.9/1.8 million years ago.
Meanwhile those who stayed behind in Africa developed the Acheulean 1.7 million years ago. They then migrated out of Africa in a second wave ~1.5 mya, taking these newer tools with them. They slowly spread them throughout the Old World and were the dominant form being manufactured by 800,000 years ago. The Acheulean itself was replaced by the Mousterian by ~300,00 years ago.
So the Acheulean isn’t the first industry and it didn’t last, unchanged, for 50,000 generations. But the Acheulean still lasted for a while, isn’t that mysterious? Not really. These guys are talking about handaxes, which are just one part of the Acheulean toolkit. Whilst the handaxe did remain quite similar throughout the Acheulean the other tools they made varied considerably, often being completely absent from some locations! Even the handaxe itself is missing from 80% of Acheulean sites. There was considerable variation and innovation occurring throughout the period.
Acheulean tools recovered from 3 nearby sites. Note how different they all.
So the claim that human beings weren’t inventing things throughout this period is demonstrably wrong. Further, we aren’t even dealing with humans here. These tools were created by our ancestors who weren’t fully modern yet. The Oldowan was first manufactured by an Australopith with a brain 1/3 the size of ours whilst the Acheulean was created by Homo erectus, with a brain 2/3 the size of ours. To discuss these species as though they are human and must be expected to behave and invent like us is absurd.
So one of the tools occasionally manufactured by a non-human species between 1.7 and 0.3 million years remained unchanged. Therefore evolution suggests humans didn’t innovate and is absurd? Or does it tell you creationists don’t really understand the science they’re trying to criticise?