Fundamentally, our Lord’s message was Himself. He did not come merely to preach a Gospel; He Himself is that Gospel. He did not come merely to give bread; He said, “I am the Bread.” He did not come merely to shed light; He said, “I am the Light.” He did not come merely to show the door; He said, “I am the Door.” He did not come merely to name a shepherd; He said, “I am the Shepherd.” He did not come merely to point the way; He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
J. Sidlow Baxter

Human foot prints

Human foot prints

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.