disputed Flood deposits. The ashfall deposits cut by pipes and gullies speak of a typical subaerial volcano accompanied by water erosion. The presence of heavy stone tools with much lighter hominin remains suggests a localized depositional environment rather than long-distance transport that would be associated with the Flood. The stone tools indicate the presence of someone making tools on top of Flood deposits, which could only occur after the Flood. Finally, the conventional date of 1.76-1.85 Ma, constrained by two basalt flows, would situate these remains at the very top of the fossil record, at a point typically understood to be post-Flood by most creationists. That these remains were deposited very shortly after the Flood is also attested by the extent and thickness of the Mashavera Basalt and the thick ashfalls deposited on top of it. These sorts of regional catastrophes would be expected during the period of post-Flood residual catastrophism. If these remains are from the immediate post-Flood period, how can we know they were human? First, we note that the typical H. erectus attributes of Skulls 1-4 provisionally place them in a taxon already part of the Lubenow Core and understood by most creationists as human. Second, the skeletal remains superficially resemble human skeletal material (Lordkipanidze et al. 2007). Third, their association with stone tools suggests that they may have possessed human cognition that we associate with the image of God. Fourth, statistical baraminology studies of both skull and skeletal attributes robustly place the Dmanisi material in the human group and distinct from australopiths (Sinclair and Wood 2021, Wood and Brummel 2023). What should we make of Skull 5? Given its close association with the other Dmanisi hominins in a very limited location, we may tentatively accept all five as part of a single population. Though we admit this is the least certain point of the Dmanisi remains, we note the consilience provided by accepting Skull 5 as human. Our model suggests that the earliest Flood survivors, possibly in close proximity to the region of Urartu, would also exhibit high variability. Dmanisi represents a very early post-Flood site just north of Urartu with a population of putatively human skulls. Skull 5 would then be understood to be part of the extreme variability we would expect of humans from that period of time at that point on the globe. There is much yet to be learned about the peculiar hominins of Dmanisi, and the story may change in significant ways in the near future. However, given our specification of a site with (1) highly variable human remains (2) from a very early post-Flood period (3) near the Levant or Urartu, Dmanisi strikingly fulfills every aspect of that prediction. Consequently, we are optimistic that Dmanisi is a confirmation of our model, even as we are cautious about the uncertainties of the site. V. RESOLUTION We recognize that science, especially the science of human origins, provides explanations of data that are often partial, incomplete, and subject to frequent revision. At best, models of human evolution can only be considered hypotheses based on extremely limited data. We believe that the model presented here gives Christians the best interpretation of the combined biblical and scientific evidence regarding human origins as presently understood. The model endorses the special creation of humans, the recent historicity of Adam and Eve, their sole progenitorship of all humans across time, and the global Flood. As with all models, open questions remain, including issues of comparative genomics, population genetics, conventional dating, and integration with later biblical archaeology, but the power of the model even in this preliminary form strongly suggests that resolutions of these questions within the model will be forthcoming. By keeping in mind the essential theological commitments of Christians, we have presented what we believe to be a powerful, albeit incomplete, explanation of the human fossil record, demonstrating that science has not produced unquestionable results but rather data that help guide our hypotheses. Furthermore, we maintain that young-age creationism offers a unique package of both models and investigative methods that address the relevant scientific data as well as scriptural data. These tools allow young-age creationists to robustly affirm both the historicity of Gen 1–11 and the theological essentials of Scripture’s metanarrative, while simultaneously charting a course through the scientific data that is rigorous in theory and fruitful in practice. Christians seeking to remain committed to these ancient and foundational Christian beliefs should consider the explanatory power of young-age creationism. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was supported by a grant from the Genesis Fund, by a Sanders Scholarship to PSB, and donations to Core Academy of Science. Thanks also to S.R. Wood for assistance on the Neandertal Stratigraphy Project and manuscript editing. REFERENCES Alemseged, Z., F. Spoor, W.H. Kimbel, R. Bobe, D. Geraads, D. Reed, and J.G. Wynn. 2006. A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 443:296-301. DOI: 10.1038/nature05047. Alperson-Afil, N., Daniel R., and N. Goren-Inbar. 2007. Phantom Hearths and the Use of Fire at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. PaleoAnthropology 2007:1-15. Anderson, J.R., D. Biro, and P. Pettitt. 2018. Evolutionary thanatology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373:20170262. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0262. Antón, S.C. 2003. Natural history of Homo erectus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122:126-170. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10399. Arsuaga, J.L., I. Martınez, A. Gracia, J.M. Carretero, C. Lorenzo, N. Garcıa, and A.I. Ortega. 1997. Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). The site. Journal of Human Evolution 33:109-127. DOI: 10.1006/ jhev.1997.0132. Asfaw, B., T. White, O. Lovejoy, B. Latimer, S. Simpson, and G. Suwa. 1999. Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284:629-635. DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5414.629. Baena, J., D. Lordkipanidze, F. Cuartero, R. Ferring, D. Zhvania, D. Martín, T. Shelia, G. Bidzinashuili, M. Roca, and D. Rubio. 2010. Technical and technological complexity in the beginning: The study of Dmanisi lithic assemblage. Quaternary International 223–224:45-53. DOI: 10.1016/j. quaint.2010.01.019. Barrett, M. and A.B. Caneday (editors). 2013. Four Views on the Historical Adam. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Bednarik, R.G. 2003. A Figurine from the African Acheulian. Current Anthropology 44:405–413. DOI: 10.1086/374900. Berge, C., and D. Goularas. 2010. A new reconstruction of Sts 14 pelvis ROSS, BRUMMEL, AND WOOD Human History: From Adam to Abraham 2023 ICC 78
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=