Not really. There have been Pygmies for a long time. Little humans are still humans to Evangelicals, at least non-racist Evangelicals like the ones that raised me.
Already, creationists accept Homo neanderthalensis as just big humans, & they don’t exactly accept Homo erectus as a link between Homo sapiens & Australopithecus. They’ll just say these are really short descendants of Adam & Eve, too.
With respect to its impact on creationism vs. evolution, why is this any different from the discovery of the Neanderthals, or Homo erectus, or any other extinct species of hominids or anthropoids?
I thought there was a certain brand of creationist who holds that all the fossils were placed there by God. Thus Neanderthals never actually existed, God just put their fossils there. These new creatures though are so recent that they actually co-existed with the islanders.
This would render the “God put the fossils there” argument invalid.
This doesn’t change anything. It sounds like they’re about as intelligent as Neanderthals, so if Creationists accept Neanderthals as humans, why wouldn’t they accept these guys as humans, too? The only thing that might get tossed out the window is current neurological theories, specifically the idea that there is a strong correlation between brain size and intelligence.
Really, to anyone who isn’t an anthropologist or neurologist, this is one of those “blurbs” that get a couple of lines at the bottom of the second-to-last page of the newspaper. Nothing more.
Or a folklorist, Dice! The knowledge that there might have been genuine races of “little people” puts a lot of old legends in a whole new light! Maybe they’ll find similar fossils in Ireland, next . . .
Wow, what a great thread title. I laughed out loud, then I clicked on it. I never expected it to be a serious question and yet… it is.
This reminds me of The Da Vinci Code (of all things). One of my many objections to the book, besides the one-dimensional characters and crappy writing, was the premise. Not that Jesus was married and had babies with Mary Magdalen, but the premise that this revelation would rock the world. Obviously, when confronted with such evidence, the churches of the world would simply deny it, pronounce it evil or fraud, and commit an entire school of scholars to “debunking” it. So it will be with the hobbits.
Moreover, when I look at it objectively, I wonder how I could expect them to do anything else. People are not likely to drop thousands of years of tradition over a pittance like Jesus getting shagged or a handful of hobbits.
The uniqueness issue has been blown out of the water for some time for anyone who’s been paying attention (not meant as a slight, just as a note that, in most scientific circles, this is an old idea). Heck, Darwin wrote, in 1871, “The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” And the evidence against uniqueness in kind has only accumulated moreso since then.
As for evidence of evolution, these could simply be (mis)construed as being a race of dwarfs, not unlike pygmys, who grew smaller because of adverse conditions (much as many plants do), and remain fully as human as any modern midget. Or something.
I think this is a fascinating discovery, but is it necessarily all that earth-shattering? Height is pretty variable among humans today - aside from actual midgets, we have ethnic groups that average something like 5’6" tall, and others that are close to 7 feet. We also know that a few hundreds years ago the average person was smaller, probably due to lack of nutrition.
Given that much variation just within the last few hundred years, why is it surprising that a hundred-thousand or perhaps million year old hominid would be that short?
Didn’t medieval Europeans believe in the existence of “monstrous” races elsewhere in the world? What was the Catholic Church’s theological postion on them?
Although such a discovery will almost certainly result in a great deal of excited speculation and debate in the fields of anthropology and evolutionary biology, I tend to side with those who believe that this type of creationism will prove as immune as ever to new evidence. If arguments from sources as diverse as homologous anatomical structures, genetics, and palaeontology are not considered persuasive, it seems unlikely that any evidence will ever be.
Count me in, also, among the admirers of this thread’s title! I find myself unaccountably charmed about the ‘hobbit’ designation seemingly being embraced as it has. I have my doubts that this apparent newly found species will have much widespread impact on theology. On the other hand…I note with some trepidation that the OP link cites a volcanic eruption as a possible cause of their extinction. If any sort of ring is unearthed from the volcano, all bets are off.
Nope. Neanderthals coexisted with Modern Humans for about 10,000 years in Europe and even longer than that in the Levant.
This is, as I mentioned in the GQ thread where this first came up, an astounding scientific find. Maybe even more astounding than the “Lucy” find in the 70s (although that clearly established upright walking further back in time than anyone knew before, so maybe “Lucy” was more significant). But from a religion vs science issue, this is “just another Homo species” of which there are quite a few already known.
I have to agree with those who say that this discovery won’t make any more difference to Biblical fundamentalists than did the existance of Neanderthals. I’ve already scanned a few Creationist-friendly message boards. The posters are underwhelmed. The consensus is that the evolutionists are grasping at straws, willfully refusing to recognize the skeleton of a child or a dwarf.
Yeah. A dwarf with a snout, tiny brain, and arms to her knees.
Aw, c’mon John Mace. If Lucy is an acceptable nickname for a Australopithicus afarensis speciman, why can’t hobbits be used as shorthand for Homo floresiensis? Or at least we can call the female remains Rosie Cotton.
Just a side comment: let’s not confuse “religion” with “disbelief in evolution.” (I refuse to use the term “creationist” since it implies that there is some validity to those beliefs.)
Those people who want to believe the bible to be word for word literal truth have always been able to deny evidence. Who are you going to believe, God’s Literal Word or your own eyes? Most of those people accept that biblical references to the “four corners of the earth” are poetry, not literal, and I don’t understand why they can’t accept the biblical creation account as similar.
That is, there are plenty people who consider themselves religious don’t take the bible to be word for word literal truth, but recognize that the bible contains poetry, metaphor, allegory, etc.
And, BTW, NPR’s news report this morning said the mini-people were dated to about 18,000 years ago.
What sugaree said. Besides, am I the only one here that’s tickled by the possibility that the Biblical literalists might suddenly find themselves in the awkward position of competing with Tolkien literalists?
