A new theory in “evolutionary genetics contradicts archaeology:
Now our understanding of when people reached the Americas—and where they came from—is expanding dramatically. The emerging picture suggests that humans may have arrived in North America at least 20,000 years ago—some 5,000 years earlier than has been commonly believed. And new research raises the possibility of an intermediate settlement of hundreds or thousands of people who spread out over the wild lands stretching between North America and Asia.
The heart of that territory has long since been submerged by the Pacific Ocean, forming the present-day Bering Strait. But some 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, the strait itself and a continent-size expanse flanking it were high and dry. That vanished world is called Beringia, and the developing theory about its pivotal role in the populating of North America is known as the Beringian Standstill hypothesis—“standstill” because generations of people migrating from the East might have settled there before moving on to North America.
Fen Montaigne, “The Fertile Shore” at Smithsonian Magazine
Then we learn,
Those discoveries have opened a wide gap between what the genetics seem to be saying and what the archaeology actually shows. Humans may have been on both sides of the Bering Land Bridge some 20,000 years ago. But skeptical archaeologists say they will not believe in this grand idea until they hold the relevant artifacts in their hands, pointing out that no confirmed North American archaeological sites older than 15,000 to 16,000 years currently exist. But other archaeologists are confident it is only a matter of time until older sites are discovered in the sprawling, sparsely populated lands of eastern Siberia, Alaska and northwestern Canada.
Fen Montaigne, “The Fertile Shore” at Smithsonian Magazine
Sure. The conflict follows a familiar pattern. For example, some of us were suspicious of the claims that Neanderthals couldn’t do artwork and sure enough, they could do artwork.
Why were we suspicious? Because underlying the claims was a problem peculiar to Darwinists that is unrelated to evidence as such: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to human history. The poor old Neanderthalers got that role—until they somehow couldn’t play so dumb any more. No worries, with so many new fossils turning up, someone new will cop the “subhuman” role.
Underlying this arrival-in-North-America conflict there may likewise be a struggle around interpretations of what human beings are. For example, an anthropologist is quoted in the conclusion of the article, “Human ingenuity is incredible. I would never underestimate it.” Unpacking that thought might help.
One problem is that some points of view are understood to arise from a philosophical position but others are thought to be “just science” when they also arise from a philosophical point of view.
Some students of evolution think that there could have been an original Adam and Eve and they are understood to be defending a traditional view enshrined in Scripture. Others reject that notion entirely but they are assumed to be acting from “purely scientific” motives when they have in fact assumed that traditional scriptures could not be an authentic record. They assume that because they themselves are, to use William Provine’s term, “pure naturalist atheists.” But then accepting their position as “just science” turns science into a PR agency for naturalist atheism. And, increasingly, it doesn’t function well that way.
Let’s see how it all plays out in the largely unwritten history of North America.
See also: Ola Hössjer And Ann Gauger Sketch Genetic Scenarios For Adam And Eve