In late September 2002 I was alerted by Glenn Branch of the NCSE (
National Center for Science Education) to a review of "
The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records Explored" (AOM) by the "anti-evolutionist" Richard Milton. The review had been placed as a permanent feature on Graham Hancock's
website.
Lets set the background to my response. No field of scientific research operates outside a framework of reference, and for the human evolution that framework is the
fact and theory of evolution. As neatly summarised by
Milford Wolpoff (1999: 31-2), evolution is defined as "
the genetic transformation of populations through time, created by alterations in the genetic makeup of populations from generation to generation. The consequences of this process are changes in the adaptations and diversity of populations. This mechanism of descent with modification is responsible for the pattern and variety of life on earth: a tall order for so simple a concept. The theory part of the "theory of evolution" is concerned with how these changes in genetic makeup occur and what effect they have on populations. Evolutionists have critically examined the mechanisms causing genetic change, the problem of whether these mechanisms need to be viewed at the level of the gene, the individual, or the species, the issue of whether changes are gradual or episodic, and the extent to which evolution is directional. However, these is no question about two facts:
1. The process of evolution is an actuality, a hypothesis more than 100-years old that has not been disproved. For there to be no evolution, every generation would have to be exactly the same genetically as the previous generation.
2. Evolution if the singular explanation for the history of life on our planet. It is not a hypothesis about how life came to be, but rather an explanation and description of the processes governing its changes over time."
Milton has, in conjunction with the creationist fringe, serious problems with evolution. This is seen in the objections raised to AOM, which can be summarised in ten points:
1. Scientific opponents of evolution are either ignored or derided
Milton makes an error by conflating the theory of evolution with "Darwinism". Instead, natural selection (Darwinism) is one component of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In referring to the "guardians of Darwinian truth", Milton is perpetuating the myth of the open mind and demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method.
2. AOM rehashes old information whilst failing to contribute anything new
In perhaps the most damaging and inaccurate statement of his review, Milton fails to produce any evidence to backup his assertion. Each year yields important new discoveries and renanalyses of existing archaeological and palaeoanthropological data, which are reported in scientific journals and which are synthesised in my book. Nowhere is it stated that a new theory on human evolution is being proposed in AOM and therefore Milton is constructing a strawman argument instead of dealing with the specifics of what my book covers. Inclusive within AOM are discussions on the mtDNA of Mungo Man, Homo ergaster landscape usage in East Africa, and details of how southern African sites such as Florisbad and Bushman Rock Shelter (BRS) help shape hypotheses on the origins of modern human behaviour. If, as Milton says, the content of AOM is "merely repetition of all the same old stuff that anyone who has ever spent time in a dentist's waiting room, leafing through old copies of National Geographic, is already thoroughly familiar with" then Milton will have no trouble giving the issue and page numbers of the National Geographic publications which not only discuss the above (Mungo Man, Homo ergaster landscape usage, and Florisbad and BRS as related to the origins of modern human behaviour) but also provide the same level of detail as my book's syntheses direct from the academic publications concerned.
3. "The Hidden History of the Human Race" is not religious apologetics
Milton states that the work of
Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson does not contain "
religious propaganda or creationist messages". In making this erroneous claim Milton has ignored what is written on pages 14-5 of AOM:
"
Nowhere in their books to date has Cremo & Thompson presented any falsifiable theory of Hindu creationism and explained how it can be tested using the scientific method. Indeed, nowhere as yet have they discussed and critiqued biological evolution taking into account the rest of the natural world and man’s position as an animal within it. At this point some readers may be saying that I am reading too much into the evidence laid before us and that my objections are speculative. So lets
take a minute to review what Michael Cremo says about himself on his website:
"The soul that I am entered its present body at the moment I was conceived in the fall of 1947. I appeared from my mother’s womb on July 15, 1948, in Schenectady, New York. That birth was probably one
of millions I have experienced since I left my real home in the spiritual world. My mother tells me that when I was an infant, she would give me alphabet soup, and sometimes I would not eat it, but would just spell out words in the bowl. From that, I take it that I must have practiced writing in many previous existences. In this life, I recall always having wanted to be a writer…After carefully studying the Bhagavad-Gita, a gift of some Hare Krishna people at a Grateful Dead concert, I decided that I should absorb myself in the yoga of devotion to the mysterious Lord Krishna. Later I moved to Los Angeles to join the staff of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and to write for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT). By 1980 I was regarded as an accomplished writer. To date, the books written and edited by myself and other BBT staff have sold more than ten million copies and have been translated into many languages. With Dr. Richard L. Thompson, a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, I began a series of books aimed at both scholarly and popular audiences.
The first to be published was Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. This book shows that archaeologists and anthropologists, over the past one hundred and fifty years, have
accumulated vast amounts of evidence showing that humans like ourselves have existed on this planet for tens of millions of years. We show how this evidence has been suppressed, ignored, and forgotten
because it contradicts generally-held ideas about human evolution. In lecture presentations on Forbidden Archeology to scientific and lay audiences around the world I see a new consciousness emerging that integrates science and religion into a cohesive paradigm of reality."
Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson are prominent members of the "Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature of India. From the Vedic literature,
we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. For the purpose of conducting systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have co-existed for long periods of
time" (Cremo & Thompson 1999: xix).
Of great significance in the introduction of Cremo & Thompson’s "The Hidden History of the Human Race" is the admittance that their views are based on religion. It poses the question whether this book is a religious tract wrapped up in a pseudo-scientific covering. I will argue the answer is an unequivocal yes. Their statement shows a misapplication of the term "theory." Theories are derived in order to explain the existing data from observable and testable events. Cremo & Thompson take as the starting point a religious idea that humans have existed in anatomically modern form for hundreds of millions of years. From this is derived an attempt to fit the fossil record to their preconceived views, which runs counter to the scientific method. The result is the inevitable accusations of "Conspiracy!" and "Scientific coverup!" "
4. AOM questions a handful of the arguments raised by Cremo & Thompson
Contrary to Milton's claim that AOM questions "a handful of their cases as unproven or badly chosen", I either prove directly, or provide details of where refutations can be found of, all of Cremo & Thompson's creationist claims for events, artifacts and fossils within the mainstream time period of hominin evolution as both badly chosen and inaccurate. Examples of these range from Laetoli, to Solly Zuckerman and Charles Oxnard (both of whom incidently regarded evolution as valid), to the Hans Reck skeleton and Kanapoi, amongst many others. My refutations are drawn from a comparative analysis of the scientific literature and from personal discussions held with various palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists.
5. The author of AOM has adopted a fundamentalist stance
This is a serious accusation which for once Milton attempts to back up (see point 7 below). However, this is undermined generally by the discussions of various contrasting scientific viewpoints discussed within the text body, and specifically by the contents of Chapter 4 which indepedently weighs up contrasting hypotheses and reaches a conclusion based solely upon my own interpretation of the evidence to date on the origins of modern human behaviour.
6. It is inaccurate to use the term "absolute dating" for radiometric dates
To be honest, I am at a loss as to where Milton came up with the statement that "now, as his degrees are in history and archaeology, it is perfectly possible that Brass is completely unaware of the important scientific error he is making in describing radiometric dating of fossils as 'absolute' dating..." Such a view displays a severe lack of fundamental knowledge regarding the archaeological discipline. Every archaeologist receives training in the basics of relative and absolute dating techniques as an undergraduate, and there are archaeologists such as Associate-Professor Judith Sealy and Professor Nick van der Merwe (both from the University of Cape Town, South Africa) who are involved in radiometric techniques. Furthermore, radiometric dating yields a specific date or date range such as, for example, 200 000 years before the present which can easily be translated into 200 000 BC for the general public. The only dating technique which does not by its nature yield a series of absolute dates for geological layers is sequence dating, otherwise known as relative dating. Dr Haywick's webpage elaborates further upon these contrasting and yet complementary dating techniques.
7. AOM provides an inaccurate summary of legitimacy of potassium-argon dating
This is an important accusation which cuts to the heart of one of the mainstays of radiometric dating:
"
In the same passage, Brass tries to make his claims for the potassium-argon method seem credible by pointing out that '0.01% of all natural potassium is radiopotassium.' To the uninitiated, this rarity must make the method seem special. But Brass forgets to mention that the substance this radioactive potassium turns into, the end product that is measured, is argon-40. Argon is the twelfth most abundant element on earth, and more than 99 per cent of it is argon-40. And there is no physical or chemical way to tell whether a given sample of argon-40 is the residue of radioactive potassium or was present in the rocks when they formed."
But how does this contrast to what is actual written on AOM's page 38?
"
Roughly 0.01% of all the natural potassium (K) is radiopotassium, or 40K. 40K decays into 40Ar (argon-40). With the decay ratio having been calculated, this dating method has been applied with enormous success to volcanic rock. In human evolutionary terms, it has its greatest application in
East Africa, which saw a great deal of volcanic activity in its geological past.
The 40K/40Ar method is less common today with the development of a more sophisticated method, 40Ar/39Ar. Deino et al. (1998) deal with this in greater detail."
Not only has Milton constructed a strawman argument but he has failed to recognise how K-Ar dating is applied. Online resources detailing K-Ar dating are available
here and
here.
8. There are no observed evolutionary speciations
In response to the factual evidence I presented for observed speciation, Milton makes the counter-claim that "there are many other places where Brass shows he has swallowed Darwinist urban scientific myths hook, line and sinker. On the very first page of his introduction he repeats the commonly-made claim that Darwinian evolution is supported by observed speciation, when the true scientific facts are that there is not a single real case of observed Darwinian speciation (the cases listed in the talk-origin "FAQ" being entirely bogus [more information available here])." However, in his choice to focus upon the talkorigins archive of observed speciations, Milton neglects to discuss ring species (pages 12-3 of AOM) and what the observed, documented genic mechanism is that prevents accumulated allele frequency changes from eventually resulting in a new species over the course of tens of thousands of years. As if that was not neglectful enough, the link Milton provides to his own webpage entitled "Observed instances of speciation" fails to address the specific examples of documented speciation addressed by talkorigins here, here, here and here.
9. Off-the-cuff dismissal of the work of Zuckerman by reference to a quote by Jim Foley
This accusation will be dealt with in two parts. Whilst it is true I deal with the claims of Zuckerman by means of quoting Jim Foley's talkorigins australopith page, Milton neglects to mention the reason provided on AOM's page 81, namely that it is the best readily available and easily accessible reply. Nor does Milton deal with the details raised by Foley, namely Wilfred Le Gros Clark's 1950 paper which demonstrates that the australopiths were not apes.
Milton also accuses Foley's webpages of being "badly researched" and "bogus". On the contrary, the information provided by Foley is taken from the latest scientific published research. Neglected in Milton's dismissal is the beating he took from Foley between August 1997 and February 1998 in e-mail correspondences that are well documented.
I find it ironic that Milton levels these baseless accusations against Foley given the lack of science on his own website (critiqued here) and in the pages of his book "The Facts
of Life, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (1992). A review of Milton's book was published in the Journal of Geoscience Education (volume 44, pages 428-38) by D.J. Leveson and D.E. Seidemann entitled " Richard Milton -- A non-religious creationist ally". An abstract of the review and a summary of its contents is provided by the University of Calgary's Andrew MacRae. Indeed, as stated by MacRae elsewhere, "Not much of what Milton says is particularly new, or without pre-existing, published refutation (most of which goes unmentioned in his book).
10. AOM brings "comfort to the excrement-hurling monkeys"
Leaving aside Milton's unfortunate turn of phrase, I rarely frequent talkorigins' Usenet post group and my book was written for scholars from all disciplines and the general public to have easily accessible information not only on human evolution but also to be able to counter the Hindu creationist claims of Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. This is clearly stated in the last paragraph of my Introduction on page 16:
"
What convinced me to take up this task was two-fold: firstly, Cremo & Thompson’s books have been a phenomenal success in sales terms around the world. They have a simplistic yet expressive writing style, which is highly effective. Their Hindu creationist views are presented in such a way as to
appear scientific when they are scientistic (scientistic works utilise scientific terminology in order to appear scientific). Secondly, when taking the above factors into account, it was clear that their book has reached many readers who possess neither the background knowledge nor training, nor have easy
access to university facilities and the technical journals in order to do their own critique. Also, many more people simply do not have the time to conduct further research. The literature of human evolution is extremely vast and complex, and I felt it needed to be synthesised and brought to bear in
evaluating Cremo & Thompson’s work, within a framework accessible to all."
Readers are free to contrast the above with Milton's claim that "
this book is designed to bring aid and comfort to the excrement-hurling howler monkeys that infest Internet groups such as talk-origins, by reaffirming once more the oft-told Darwinist tale of human origins".
Any reader wishing to read texts to supplement the information contained within AOM and this critique of Milton's review are advised to consult in particular John Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution", Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" and Arthur Strahler's "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy". Additional online resources are detailed on my pseudoscience page.
Milton has
responded to my critique but has failed to address the points made.