Here’s a post from The Scientist documenting an important scientific find. In Morocco, archeologists discovered what is considered to be the oldest Homo sapiens fossil, estimated around 300,000 years old. This shakes things up quite a bit because it was thought modern humans first appeared about 195,000 years ago, out of eastern Africa. But now evolutionists think humans have been around far longer, and over a greater territory.

The fossil remains of at least five humans were excavated beginning in 2004, and it’s interesting to see how scientists have reacted. Jean-Jacques-Hublin, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology said, “This gives us a completely different picture of the evolution of our species. It goes much further back in time, but also the very process of evolution is different to what we thought. It looks like our species was already present probably all over Africa by 300,000 years ago.”

John Fleagle, a paleoanthropologist at the State University of New York said, “This stuff is a time and a half older than anything else put forward as H. sapiens.”

 Hubin also mentioned that, “The face is that of somebody you could come across in the Metro.”

What else I find interesting is the uncertain nature of science that this article brings to light. Evolution, to some, ought not be questioned because science is considered the final authority. In fact, I’ve had many evolutionists say exactly this. Whatever science says is considered to be true and should be believed over other sources, such as the Bible or eye-witness testimony.

But the problem with this type of thinking is manifold. First, science is simply a process by which scientists form a conclusion; it isn’t some kind of entity that proclaims truth independently, whereby we only need to accept those proclamations lest we be considered “anti-science”. The conclusions reached by scientists are merely opinions that could change with further evidence.

Second, articles like this demonstrate the fallibility of science and the conclusions scientists make. It seems like, whenever a new discovery is made, scientists are surprised. But this shouldn’t be the case if every scientific conclusion were true and unchanging. Furthermore, there certainly wouldn’t be any contradictions. But here we see how old beliefs are uprooted in favor of new beliefs based on unexpected data. Chris Stringer, another paleoanthropologist, said, “They shift Morocco from a supposed backwater in the evolution of our species to a prominent position.”

Based on the diagrams of the skulls, they look perfectly human; there are even stone tools and other artefacts associated with the fossils. All this evidence, along with what I believe the Bible teaches about human origins, I’d conclude that these fossils came from people just as fully human as you and I, and that none of us evolved from an ape-like ancestor. They would have been living normal lives, just as any other group of humans in history.

It’s notable that the remains consisted of three young adults, one teenager, and a child about 7.5 years old. These people may have found shelter in a cave, and they probably collected material about 15 miles away, then used flint tools to sharpen spearheads and hunt gazelle and zebra. This suggests that these people were intelligent and social, rather than some kind of pre-human brutes.

The paper further points to the uncertainty surrounding human evolution, acknowledging that our history is obscure due to the scarce fossil record and the uncertainty of age. In addition, the paper points to other aspects of human evolution that are unclear, such as morphology. This opens the door to forensic science, which deals with the past. As with modern criminal forensic science, scientists seek to determine what happened in the past, how it happened, and perhaps why. Investigators in a murder mystery look for forensic evidence, hoping to piece together the crime scene and identify the culprit. But even when piecing together evidence a decade old, mistakes can be made, and the wrong person identified. There are countless stories of wrongful jail sentences and punishment for those who are innocent. Yet many people will put their faith in scientists who claim we evolved from an ape-like ancestor based on incomplete, obscure and unclear evidence hundreds of thousands and millions of years old. Putting all this in perspective should make it clear that such a conclusion isn’t as logical as many would have us believe.

On the contrary, I think it’s quite logical to accept the Biblical origin of human history, and I believe there’s plenty of evidence to support such claims.

Someday scientist may discover human fossils far older than those found at Morocco, and all that does is squish evolution even more because it provides even less time for evolution to occur. Evolution needs lots and lots of time, but it keeps finding itself with less and less opportunity.

I think one of the reasons why so many people accept these evolutionary millions of years is because dating techniques are considered irrefutable. Many people accept such dates as ultimate truth that cannot be questioned. But this paper highlights the uncertainty of dating techniques. Originally, the fossils were dated around 40,000 years old and were considered to be those of Neanderthals. Later the fossils were dated by uranium and produced a date of 160,000 years. Electron Spin resonance dating produced a date of 190 to 90 thousand years. But the latest dating techniques are based on thermoluminescence and provided a date of about 315,000 (+ – ) years.

Now, all this isn’t meant to belittle science, but to stress its limitations and support its proper usage. Science is certainly useful in helping us improve our lives and increase our knowledge and understanding of the world, but it’s also based on human fallibility.

On the contrary, the only source of infallibility is God, and I believe he has revealed the origin of humans, and that’s why I can confidently say that the fossil discoveries found in Morocco fit perfectly into a recent Biblical history.