Fossil Man Tracks in Texas Officially Rebuked

Roger Cooper - 1 November 1988

The Creationists’ tactics in getting their ideas accepted are not to promote their own (the biblical) version of creation but to attack the “orthodox” scientific view. A constant barrage of criticism of evolutionary theory and of geological theories on age and origin of the earth (and universe) is levelled with the aim of discrediting the theory or theories. Then, with a nimble leap sideways, it is concluded that “The Alternative” explanation is just as likely to be true, “the alternative” being of course the Genesis account. This ploy cleverly presents the biblical account as a viable alternative to an existing scientific theory thereby conferring upon the account the status of an “alternative scientific theory” and obscuring its real nature—that of a religious notion. This constant attack forces scientists into a defensive position—defending their theories by rebutting the creationist arguments.

Scientists have been reluctant to undertake the tedious and (scientifically) unrewarding task of rebutting the creationist arguments one by one. There is not enough time or resources to do science as it is, without having to substantiate theories that more than 99% of scientists already happily accept. However, as the fundamentalist influence spreads it may become necessary for scientists in New Zealand to take up the challenge.

It is therefore of some interest that one of the favourite creationist arguments against evolutionary theory—the coexistence of foot tracks of man and dinosaurs in Cretaceous rocks at Paluxy River in Texas—has finally been accepted by Creationists themselves as invalid. The following extract is from an article in Paleobiology 13, 1987 (pp. 246-252) by M G Lockley.

Resolution of the “Man Tracks” Problem.

On the subject of locomotor behaviour, one of the most unexpected outcomes of the Symposium was a quiet and very convincing explanation of the Cretaceous Texas “man-track problem,” previously touted as a contentious creation versus evolution issue. Based on the work of Kuban (1986), it is now clear that many of the elongated traces, which bear a superficial resemblance to oversized man tracks, represent the impressions of the posterior part of the metatarsus of tridactyl theropods and/or ornithopods that sometimes walked in planigrade fashion (Fig. 1). Kuban’s explanation is strongly supported by the frequently obvious connection between metatarsus and digit impressions, often highlighted by distinct colouration. His work has prompted the Institute for Creation Research to take the film Footprints in Stone out of circulation, and accept the dinosaur tracks interpretation.

Reference

Kuban, G. 1986. “The Taylor Site Man Tracks” and “Review of ICR Impact Article 151”. Origins Research, 9:1 pp. 7-13.