Lucy's Knee Joint

A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors

by

Copyright © 1995-2003

[Last Update: June 12, 2003]

An earlier version of this FAQ was published as "Lucy's Knee Joint: How creationists deal with their errors," in The Skeptic (magazine of the Australian Skeptics) vol. 15, no. 4, Summer 1995, pp. 34-36, with additional comments by Colin P. Groves. (Australian Skeptics, Inc., P.O. Box A2324, Sydney South NSW 2000 Australia)

reationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:

Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.

The problem has been compounded by the Institute for Creation Research's use of the name "Lucy" to refer to both the species Australopithecus afarensis and the individual "Lucy," as ICR Museum director John Rajca did on the June 18, 1994 segment of the ICR's "Science, Scripture and Salvation" radio program. Rajca said:

"In the fall of 1973, near Hadar, Dr. Johanson found the fossil of what is now called Lucy. The reason it is called Lucy is that the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was playing in the camp when the fossil was discovered. The first specimen of Lucy to be uncovered was a knee joint. At first this was judged to be a monkey; it was later labelled by Johanson as a hominid. Lucy is a 40% complete female skeleton...."

The claim that Lucy's knee joint was found separate from the rest of the skeleton has been made or reported by Russell Arndts (1991), Carl Baugh (1995), Walter Brown (1989a), Donald Chittick (1994), Michael Girouard (1989), Kent Hovind (1993a), Scott Huse (1993), Richard LaHaye (1997), David McAllister (1993a), Bill Mehlert (1992), David Menton (1988), John Morris (1989), Dave and Mary Jo Nutting (1991, 1993, 1994), Dennis Petersen (2002, 2003), Douglas Sharp (1994), Paul Taylor (1989), and Tom Willis (1987).

The following is a brief summary of attempts to get retractions:

• Arndts was corrected by a letter to the editor of the Bible-Science Newsletter from Lippard (April 12, 1991). The letter was neither published nor replied to. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Arndts c/o the Bible-Science News on July 13, 1994. Arndts stated on February 12, 1996 in response to email from Jims Foley and Lippard that he has not personally researched the issue, that his point in the Bible-Science News piece was only to illustrate a certain type of error in reasoning, and that he should have replied to the 1991 letter to the editor, which he did see. He did not indicate that he had any interest in examining the claim or offering a retraction; his reply suggested that he feels no obligation to do either.
  
  
• On Bo Gritz's radio show "Freedom Calls" on November 1, 1995, Carl Baugh claimed that Donald Johanson inadvertently let the truth slip a couple of years ago when a student asked him where he found the evidence of Lucy's bipedality (from a knee joint found some distance away from the rest of the skeleton). Baugh's web site makes the knee joint claim. Baugh has not yet been contacted.
  
  
• Brown (1989a) wrote:

  Donald Johanson, Lucy's discoverer, apparently made quite an admission at the University of Missouri in Kansas City on November 20, 1986. When asked during the question-and-answer session, "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" Johanson's reported answer was, "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis, 1987)! Johanson needs to clarify or deny this in writing. None of his published writings do.

  Brown was corrected by Lippard (1989-90 and 1989), quoting from Johanson (1989). Brown's response (1989b and 1989-90) was to evade the issue and offer a completely different criticism of Johanson's "First Family" finds. This was in turn responded to by Lippard (1990), quoting from Johanson (1990). Brown never responded further. A letter from Lippard to Origins Research (May 1990) responding to Brown (1989b) was never published or acknowledged. (The information in that letter was published in Lippard (1990).) A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Brown on July 13, 1994; another copy was sent via email on February 21, 1996. Brown never replied, but his book, In the Beginning..., does not make the claim. On August 25, 1997, Brown wrote to Lippard to complain about "false and damaging statements about me concerning 'Lucy.'" The essence of his complaint is that he says he was only reporting the claim rather than making the claim himself, and to rely on an ambiguity on the word "this" in the sentence "Johanson needs to clarify or deny this in writing." He now--eight years later--claims that "this" was referring specifically to Willis' report of the question-and-answer session, not to the location where the knee joint was found, and that Johanson had not clarified or denied that particular exchange. Even under this interpretation, however, it is still the case that Johanson's writings clarify the exchange, and Johanson immediately responded to an inquiry about it when the issue was raised. Brown apparently didn't bother to investigate himself before claiming that "none of [Johanson's] writings" clarify the issue. While Brown does include the word "apparently" in his description and reports the Q&A exchange rather than explicitly stating that Lucy's knee joint was found away from the rest of the skeleton, he clearly stated that he thought Johanson was making some kind of remarkable "admission" in his answer. It should be noted that Brown has used this same "plausible deniability" tactic on multiple occasions to distance himself from claims such as that Archaeopteryx is a hoax, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that there are human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata at the Paluxy River in Texas.
  
  
• Chittick was sent a copy of the then-current version of this article on July 13, 1994. In a letter dated July 29, 1994, Chittick wrote that "The knee joint found lower and away from the 40% complete skeleton was the item Johanson used in his claim that 'Lucy' walked upright." Johanson argues that the 1973 knee joint is of the same species as "Lucy" on the grounds of anatomical similarity, and points to it as one of several pieces of evidence that the species, and therefore "Lucy," walked upright. But this is not a claim that the 1973 knee joint was "Lucy"'s knee, which is what Chittick and others have claimed or implied. On August 10, 1994, I wrote back to Chittick asking "what is the evidence that Johanson has ever claimed the 1973 knee joint as belonging to the individual 'Lucy'?" Chittick responded on August 26, 1994 by reiterating the example from his earlier letter of the photo caption in the Weaver (1985) National Geographic article. Further exchanges produced no further evidence of any intent by Johanson to deceive. In a letter dated September 12, 1994, Chittick refused to agree with a statement that some creationists have made erroneous claims about "Lucy"'s knee joint on the grounds that "Without your listing specific instances, I have no way of checking that out. Without checking it out, it would not be honest for me to make that claim." In my letter of September 16, 1994, I responded that "I invite you to read my letter and enclosures of July 13, 1994 which began our correspondence. I listed twelve specific instances with references." A follow-up note on January 17, 1995, after receiving no reply, produced a January 26, 1995 letter from Chittick indicating that he refused to correspond with me further. Chittick never admitted any error nor agreed to stop making the knee joint claim. On November 20, 1997, he repeated the claim at the North Seattle Christian Fellowship, and was confronted afterward by Pierre Stromberg, who showed him a letter from John Morris agreeing that the claim is false. According to Stromberg, who has attended two more recent Chittick lectures, Chittick has now stopped making the claim.
  
  
• Girouard was corrected by Lippard in person immediately after his presentation, and given a copy of Johanson (1989). Girouard asked Lippard to write him a letter, and promised to respond. Lippard's letter of December 5, 1989 provoked no reply. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Girouard c/o the ICR on July 13, 1994. Girouard never replied.
  
  
• Hovind was corrected by a letter from Lippard (October 30, 1993) and agreed to stop using the claim (1993b). A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Hovind on July 13, 1994. Hovind never replied, but continued making the claim (e.g., on July 1, 1995 in Colorado). On July 17, 1995, Jim Foley sent a letter to Hovind about the claim, and in a letter of reply on July 23, 1995, Hovind admitted that he was in error and agreed to stop making the claim and to remove it from his audio tapes.
  
  
• Scott Huse added the claim to the second edition of his book, The Collapse of Evolution, p. 127, in 1993. He has not yet been contacted.

   

• Richard LaHaye made the claim at an Institute for Creation Research public lecture on May 28, 1997--odd, since the president of the ICR (John Morris) has known the claim to be false for years (see below). Pierre Stromberg sent LaHaye a letter including a copy of the then-current version of this article on June 10, 1997. LaHaye responded that he has seen no evidence that Johanson didn't say what Tom Willis says he did (which has not been in dispute!), and that he therefore retracts nothing--but that the ICR has asked him to stop making the claim. Pierre Stromberg has more information on his communications with LaHaye and John Morris on the web at http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/lucy.html.
  
  
• McAllister was corrected in person by Lippard and given copies of Johanson (1989 and 1990). He publicly corrected the mistake during his lecture, and asked for other criticisms of his lecture and seminar workbook by letter. Lippard sent a detailed critique (November 7, 1993). McAllister (1993b) responded saying that he did not have time to reply at the moment, but would do so before the end of the year. He never did. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to McAllister on July 13, 1994. McAllister never replied.
  
  
• Mehlert has not yet been contacted.
  
  
• Menton was sent a copy of the then-current version of this article on February 7, 1995. On April 25, 1995 he contacted Lippard in email stating that he had heard second-hand that this article claimed he had not responded to email Lippard had sent him about this issue, and accused Lippard of writing a knowing falsehood (i.e., lie) to that effect. On the same date, Lippard responded in email noting that the February 7 letter was sent via U.S. mail, c/o the Missouri Association for Creation, which published the Menton article criticized herein. Lippard's email included a copy of the then-current version of this article. Menton has not replied to repeated email requests for comments and for a retraction of his accusation about Lippard, but an online copy of his article was updated on July 19, 1996 to clarify that the 1973 knee joint has not been claimed by Johanson to be Lucy's (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm).
  
  
• Morris (1993) admitted that he had read Lippard (1989-90) and knew the claim was false, but stated that he did not feel that a retraction of his 1989 article was necessary. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Morris on July 13, 1994. Morris never replied. In Morris (1995), he stated that "Only controversial (among evolutionists) interpretations of Lucy's hip and (even more questionable) knee give any hint of slightly more erect posture than chimps." Morris wrote to Pierre Stromberg regarding the knee joint issue on August 1, 1997 (see Pierre's web site at http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/lucy.html). In September 1998, the ICR's web site republished Morris' 1989 article which makes the knee joint claim, without any disclaimer or notice of error (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm). Sometime around June 1999, an addendum was added to the web page version of this Morris article to note the error, and complain that

  Study of the tactics used in the decades-long harangue by evolutionists to re-establish the pedigree of Lucy's knee is instructive. Evolutionists scour the creationist's literature for any error, no matter how trivial. (Creationists are not infallible, and error does creep in, despite our best efforts.) These minor errors are trumpeted far-and-wide by self appointed evolutionary watchdogs, and used to claim that creationism is not credible, all the while ignoring much more significant misstatements or inappropriate museum displays, etc., by evolutionists.

  
  
  
• Dave Nutting was sent a letter by Jim Foley asking about the claim in January 1994. He did not respond to that letter, and subsequently repeated the claim (1994). Foley sent Nutting another letter, including an earlier version of this article, on July 5, 1994. Nutting replied on August 14, 1994, admitting that "it seems that some of the statements you made along with the article are correct" but maintaining (as does Willis (n.d.)) that "Johanson gives the impression in lecture ... that the two [1973 knee joint and Lucy] go together--although he never states that." The Nuttings did not admit any errors nor agree to withdraw any claims. Instead, they repeated the claim in the September/October 1995 issue of Think and Believe (vol. 12, no. 5). In the October 1997 Colorado Christian News (Martin 1997), it is reported that Dave Nutting gave a talk at the "Steeling the Mind of America" in Vail, Colorado on August 23, 1997, in which he claimed that "Lucy's knee and head bones were found considerable distances from the rest of the fossil" and that "It is certain that Lucy is actually at least three separate creatures."
  Dave Nutting has continued to repeat the Lucy claim as recently as a creation/evolution presentation at Summit Ministries in Manitou Springs, CO on June 3-4, 2003.
  
• Dennis Petersen was sent a reference to this FAQ in email on April 20, 2003. Dennis Petersen replied by email on April 21, 2003, to indicate that he would examine this document "as time permits," but has not responded further.
  
  
• Sharp's book The Revolution Against Evolution (on the Internet) repeated the claim, along with other long-discredited creationist claims such as that Clarence Darrow used Nebraska Man as evidence in the Scopes Trial. (Both the knee joint and Darrow claims were on the web at http://www.rae.org/revev3.html.) A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to the maintainer of the web page on April 11, 1996 in email. Douglas Sharp responded the same day that he did not wish to make any erroneous claims, and would revise his work if further investigation showed his statements to be false. The next day, he wrote again to agree that the claim was in error, that he would cease making it, and that he would do what he could to prevent it from propagating further. He updated his web page to correct the pointed-out mistakes, and added a list of some bad arguments used by creationists to his web site at http://www.rae.org/dont.html.
  
  
• The fourth edition of Taylor's book (second printing, June 1993) does not mention Willis' article or the knee joint claim directly, but part of reference [206] in this edition says:

  Albert W. Mehlert, "A Study of Comments by Evolutionist Authorities on the Alleged Hominids Found in the Hadar/Afar region of Africa," Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy Vol 6, No 1 (Bible-Science Association, January 87), pp1-2,4 (provides evidence that "Lucy" was made up of fossils from two separate sites and was an ape, "probably a chimp-like ape").

  Taylor's description of Mehlert (1987) is misleading in its use of the name "Lucy" to refer to the species A. afarensis, which Mehlert himself does not do. Mehlert argues that "Lucy" (which he erroneously says is from Site 162; she is from Site 288 nearby) is a "chimp-like ape" and the "First Family" finds (Site 333) "included many human bones." He does not claim that the individual "Lucy" was composed of bones from both sites; Taylor's implication to this effect is false. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Taylor on July 13, 1994. Taylor replied on August 12, 1994 agreeing that the wording was in error and that he would correct "this inexcusable mistake" in the next edition.
  
  
• Willis was corrected by a letter from Lippard in 1989, but never responded. A copy of the then-current version of this article was sent to Willis on July 13, 1994. Willis (n.d.) is a revised version of the original article which recognizes that the 1973 knee joint is described in Johanson and Edey (1981) as distinct from "Lucy," but rather than admitting or retracting error, Willis goes on to accuse Johanson of "misrepresent[ing] the evidence ... for money and prestige" and using "the slick presentation style of a con-man to deceive at least two senior staff at National Geographic ... and several competent scientists." Willis has never responded to any inquiries from this author.

To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jim Foley for the information about the fourth edition of Taylor's book, about David Nutting, about Hovind's continued use of the claim in his lectures and following up on it with letters, about Carl Baugh, about Douglas Sharp, and about Dennis Petersen. Jim also initiated communication with Russell Arndts via Internet. Thanks to KG Anderson for information about Rajca and the ICR radio program. Thanks to Stephen Watson for the initial information about Donald Chittick. Thanks to Drew Talley for supplying Menton's article from the ICR BBS. Thanks to Darren Provine for the Bill Mehlert reference. Thanks to David Buckna for the update on David Menton's article. Thanks to Pierre Stromberg for attempting to communicate with Donald Chittick, Richard LaHaye, and John Morris and for the information about various ICR lectures. Thanks to a colleague from a mid-western school who wishes to remain anonymous for the 2003 update on the Nuttings.

References