Regarding new fossil teeth much older than previously thought (2.8 million years old – 400,000 years earlier than before): “Arizona State’s William Kimbel, an author of the paper, said it’s not clear whether the fossil came from a known early species of Homo or whether it reveals a new one.”
Such phrases seem to come up frequently: ‘older than previously thought’, ‘younger than previously thought’, ‘surprising results’, ‘unexpected data’, etc. This shows that science is still rapidly advancing, but I believe that it more often shows that we harbor assumptions and worldviews which color the way we interpret data and influence our expectations. In particular, I believe that many scientists operate under the wrong worldview (of Evolution and Naturalism) and are thus often challenged by data.
Speaking of worldviews which color our interpretations, I also find an irony in the example above, in the fact that they would at least offer the option that the fossil teeth may be a new species of Hominid. That will guarantee more funding for sure!
By Brian Mariani, Source: FoxNews.com, Scientists say jaw bone fragment dating back 2.8 million years evidence of earlier evolution, March 5, 2015, http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/03/05/unearthed-jaw-bone-fragment-sheds-light-on-turning-point-in-human-evolution/?intcmp=latestnews
