Human Footprints

Footprints, footprints...and you thought it stopped with Paluxy.

Well, James Monroe (Dept. of Geology, Central Michigan University,

and an OR contributor; see vol. 7, no. 2, Fall/Winter 1984) has

"tracked down" several other reports of anomalous prints, which he

discusses in his recent paper, "Creationism, Human Footprints, and

Flood Geology" ( Journal of Geological Education , 35: 93-103, 1987).

He writes (in the abstract):

Human footprints in geologically ancient strata would indeed call

into doubt many conventional geologic concepts. However, a study

of the human footprint photographs and literature reveals that

the "evidence" consists of real but misrepresented human

footprints, misidentified animal tracks, petroglyphs, and oddly

shaped concretions. Futhermore, the logical implications of the

footprint evidence have not been considered thoroughly in the

broad context of the creation model, and especially in terms of a

world-wide catastrophic flood.

Monroe concludes that some creationists writers "may be

justifiably criticized for the way in which "evidence" is

reported," and [f]rom much of the creationist literature cited in

this article, it appears that with the exception of [William]

Rusch...creationists really do not care much about science or

scientific evidence except insofar as it supports their belief

system" (p. 101).

We'll agree that many creationists may be as uncritical as Monroe

argues, but disagree--strongly--that it follows that all

creationists are indifferent to the quality or logical bearing of

the empirical evidence. Such a judgment would be akin to condemning

all evolutionist for Piltdown, or Haeckel's frauds.

While you're in the Journal of Geological Education , don't miss

"Current Issues in Evolutionary Paleontology" (Vol. 35: 80-85,

1987), by Erik Scully (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Towson State

University). The paper is a good summary of current debates in

paleontology, and has a very useful bibliography.