How many times have you heard the claim that the evidence for evolution is “overwhelming”? It is a familiar talking point, repeated so often that it is rarely examined. But what does it actually mean? In practice, it amounts to little more than word salad. What evolutionists are really saying is that all evidence must be interpreted through an evolutionary lens. Once that worldview is assumed, every fossil, bone, and fragment is forced to fit the theory. Any evidence that does not conform must be reinterpreted until it does. This circular reasoning is not science.

A recent article from Discover Magazine provides a textbook example. The headline reads, “A 2-Million-Year-Old Skeleton Shows Early Humans Were Still Built for the Trees.” This assumes what it must prove: that the skeleton belonged to an “early human” rather than an ape. But what if this creature climbed trees because it was an ape? What if it was not a human ancestor at all? And what happens when we examine the evidence without first assuming evolution? Let’s see if any of these questions can be answered.

The circular reasoning continues in the tagline: “Learn about the most complete Homo habilis fossil ever found, and how this fossil is changing what we know about human evolution.” From the outset, the fossil is assigned a name, a lineage, and a role in human evolution. The first sentence reinforces the indoctrination: “A remarkably complete fossil from northern Kenya is giving scientists their clearest picture yet of what one of humanity’s earliest ancestors actually looked like.” The next paragraph doubles down with repetition, calling it “the oldest and most complete Homo habilis skeleton ever found” [emphasis min]. The conclusion is predetermined.

We are repeatedly told how “complete” this fossil is, implying that it finally fills a major gap in the fossil record and sheds light on a species that “may have given rise to Homo erectus and, eventually, modern humans.” Notice the cautious language- may have- which quietly acknowledges uncertainty. In fact, the article later admits that prior to this discovery, Homo habilis was known only from “skull fragments” and “isolated bones.” That is a thin foundation on which to build an ancestral claim.

So what does this “remarkably complete” fossil actually include? In addition to skull fragments and isolated bones, researchers recovered both collarbones, fragments of shoulder blades, upper and lower arm bones, parts of the pelvis, a section of the sacrum, and a nearly complete set of teeth. Everything else is fragmentary. Yet from this limited collection, evolutionists confidently declare the creature a human ancestor.

Based on these bones, scientists estimate that this animal stood about 23 inches tall and weighed between 65 and 70 pounds- less than two feet tall. Compare that to Homo erectus, which is said to have averaged between 4.8 and 6.1 feet tall. That would require more than a doubling in height. Yet the problem worsens when timelines are considered. Homo habilis is dated between 1.4 and 2.5 million years ago, while Homo erectus is said to have lived between 110,000 and 2 million years ago. Their time ranges overlap. If habilis was evolving into erectus, where is the clear, empirical transitional evidence?

Even the article admits that the similarities between Homo habilis and Homo erectus are largely confined to limb bones. Meanwhile, the differences are substantial. Homo habilis was “shorter, lighter, and built differently,” with proportionally longer and stronger arms- traits resembling Australopithecus afarensis, an ape-like creature. The shoulder and arm bones had “unusually thick outer layers,” another feature consistent with climbing.

Ape arms are well suited for life in the trees. Human arms are not. Yet the author inadvertently concedes the obvious, stating that these traits suggest “a lifestyle that may have still involved significant climbing.” In other words, the fossil exhibits ape-like anatomy. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, the author insists on forcing it into an evolutionary framework.

The final admission is telling. Ashley S. Hammond, one of the researchers, says, “Going forward, we need lower limb fossils of Homo habilis, which may further change our perspectives on this key species.” That word- perspectives- reveals the problem. The interpretation is driven by worldview, not objective evidence. When evolution is assumed, everything becomes evidence for evolution, even when the data contradicts the narrative.

But if we set aside that assumption, another explanation is available- one grounded in Scripture. The Bible teaches that God created living things to reproduce after their kind and that humanity was uniquely created in God’s image (Genesis 1:20-27). If God created the heavens and the earth in six days (Exodus 20:11), then evolution is not required to explain human origins or biological diversity. Rather than bending the evidence to fit a theory, we can trust God’s revelation as the foundation for understanding where we came from.