Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils [Paperback]

Marvin L. Lubenow (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 1992

When it comes to human evolution, only the fossils tell the real story.With over thirty-five years of research in the areas of creationism and evolutionism, Professor Marvin Lubenow seeks to disprove both the philosophical and scientific untruths in the theory of human evolution.

--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 296 pages
• Publisher: Baker Books (December 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801056772
• ISBN-13: 978-0801056772
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (70 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,138,112 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

130 of 156 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting and Enjoyable, March 12, 2000

By 

Cashew Son (Texas, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Paperback)

I have to admit that I almost didn't bother to read this book because it has the word "Creationist" in the title. Fortunately I realized my own petty reasoning and bought the book, title and all.

I think that it is always healthy to have two perspectives on every issue, especially one as emotionally charged as the Evolution debate. The author does a good job of presenting an alternative interpretation of the different hominid fossils. It is evident that he has devoted a lot of time into achieving expertise in this field of study. The chronological charts that he pulls together with statistics are hard to find anywhere else.

The first two hundred pages make the book well worth the read. It is actually refreshing to hear someone speak candidly about their religious beliefs when discussing the subject of Evolution and it yields that kind of credibility that one does not sense when reading Gould or Dawkins, who attempt to manipulate the reader into religious conclusions while feigning scientific objectivity.

Ironically the author appears much kinder to evolutionists than to some of his fellow creationists, who get skewered in the last 50 pages or so of infighting. This section didn't interest me much - I would have preferred to learn more about the Australopithecus fossils.

It is interesting how paleontologists can write so confidently about their interpretation of the hominid fossils and yet contradict each other, usually unbeknownst to the casual reader. A book like this exposes the contradictions and corrections, helping the student obtain a greater perspective.

49 of 62 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Not all that is gold glitters, December 27, 2005

By 

Charles Soper (London) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Paperback)

As a publishing and practising physician, I was impressed by this book. Despite its popular tone and its casual observations, its strengths should not be underestimated - he cites some of the best contemporary work with critical familiarity, unveils some hideous flaws of reasoning and practice in standard works, and shines valuable insights into the field. Well worth studying objectively.

100 of 136 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The fossils don't support human evolution, May 13, 2000

By 

David C. Read (Glendale, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils (Paperback)

Lubenow's argument is not based on anatomy but on stratigraphy. For the most part, he does not challenge the evolutionists' reconstructions of the fossils, typically based upon tiny fragments. Nor does he, for the most part, challenge the evoutionists' classifications. He simply points out that the hominid fossil record, taken as a whole, does not show a progression, as we move up the geologic column, from more primitive, apelike fossils to modern humans. Quite the contrary, the hominid fossil record shows long periods when all hominid types lived side by side. For the most part, all the different types of hominid fossils co-exist all the way up the geologic column. Of course, nowhere does the geologic column preserve a series of fossils showing a reasonably smooth progression from one species into another, so it would be shocking if it showed such a progression from apes to humans. If evolution were really a scientific theory or hypothesis subject to being disproven by the evidence, the fossil record would be sufficient to disprove it. In fact, evolution is not a scientific theory, but rather the only possible outcome when the the philosophical assumption of naturalism is applied to the history of the earth's flora and fauna.

One gets the impression though, based on the piltdown hoax and several similar incidents, that the reconstructions and the classifications are exceedingly shaky, and rife with opportunities for self-serving fraud and, likely more common, self-delusion. Only a tiny handful of professionals have access to the original fossils, which are typically kept in padded boxes inside locked vaults. The rest must make do with photographs, written descriptions or, at best, plaster-cast models. The significance of this? The file-marks on the teeth of Piltdown man were visible on the original, but they were not detectible on the plaster-cast model. (p. 16). Worse yet, it is not uncommon for the paleoanthropologist who discovered the fossil to deny access to it to those he suspects may be hostile to his classification of it. Lord Zuckerman said of those studying fossil primates that their record was "so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all. The story of the Piltdown Man hoax provides a pretty good answer."

Let me save you trouble of reading the book. The theory of hominid evolution is utterly destroyed and demolished before we even get to chapter six. (p. 59). It turns out that the oldest hominid fossil, KP 271, is dated to 4.5 million years old, according to the evolutionist/uniformitarian time scale. It is a fully modern human upper arm (humerus) bone. Obviously, no younger fossil --and that includes all of the putative missing links-- can be the ancestor of man. The evolutionists call KP 271 an australopithecus fossil not because it looks ape-like, but because if it really is human and is correctly dated, the modern theory of human evolution is exploded. Allow Lubenow to quote a colleague of the discoverer of KP 271: "The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." (p. 56-57). Did everyone follow that? Instead of trying to figure out what a human fossil is doing in strata notionally 4.5 million years old, the evolutionist simply concludes that it must not be a human fossil. After all, what are you going to believe the theory of evolution or your lying eyes?

The creationist asks, "at what point does this type of behavior cease to be merely abject, wretched self-delusion and slip on over into intellectual dishonesty, or outright fraud?" Well, it never does, according to Lubenow, because "to the evolutionist, there is but one primary fact in the universe: evolution. Everything else is just data. . . . Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded." In other words, its not dishonest because the evolutionist doesn't realize or acknowledge that there could be any debate about whether we in fact did evolve from apes. Why not? I think its because the great bulk of established Christian denominations don't seriously question evolution anymore. Amazing but true. Lubenow spends a rather tedious chapter upbraiding our Christian brethren for trying to harmonize the evolution/uniformitarian model with the creation account in Genesis. But he has a point. Those that try to "harmonize" are in fact accepting the frail theories of finite men over the revealed Word of God. The larger question is why anyone imagined, and so many still do believe, that both evolution and Christianity can be true. Christianity pre-supposes the need for a Savior, which hinges on the doctrine of the Fall of man. If man evolved up from bacteria by survival of the fittest, the concept of sin, the fall of man, and the need for a Redeemer make no sense whatsoever. Those concepts become totally allegorical and utterly non-factual. In order for Christianity to have any appeal to grown men who wish maintain their intellectual integrity, Christianity must oppose the theory of evolution.