"... it's possible that the answer is, "yes, an earlier hominid capable of
building a boat did exist, but all the evidence of his existence --
whatever is left of it -- is at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Glenn's
thesis is scientifically testable in the sense that if certain kinds of
artifacts are found in the Mediterranean, his hypothesis is strengthened.
If they aren't, then either we haven't looked in the right place, they've
been destroyed, or they don't exist."
The first task of any theory is to explain the facts. Glenn has provided
us with a hypothesis (perhaps too early to be called a "theory"), which,
in my opinion, does explain a lot of the facts. But the issue of
testability is important, and looking for evidence at the bottom of the
Mediterranean does not seem very promising. (I would rather search for
the Ark in the mountains of Turkey, though this seems a nearly hopeless
quest.)
Some of the difficulty associated with testing Glenn's hypothesis is
inherent in the biblical flood story (event) itself. Much was destroyed
in the flood, and, as Glenn has pointed out, much preflood human technical
knowledge surely has to have been lost as a consequence of the flood. To
these inherent problems, Glenn adds the problem of 5.5 million years - for
data to have been obliterated. Surely this will be the case for all but
some fossil and geological data.
I believe Glenn's arguments concerning alleles is interesting. It
provides some helpful data for those who accept the flood story (event) -
which I do - but it is not likely to have any influence on those who
don't. Thus this, in itself, does not provide evidence for his hypothesis
- just good evidence against a relatively-recent-Noah hypothesis, and to
some extent against the flood event itself.
Presently, I am doubtful that Glenn's hypothesis is testable - from a
practical standpoint. How do other's feel?
Finally, I think it is worth noting that theoretical scientists are now
spinning theories - such as string theories of various sorts - which are
nontestable by all appearances. For this very reason, these are drawing
fire from other scientists. But the practice continues. What is one to
make of this? These are not Christians, for the most part, but committed
"methodological naturalists" - as Phillip Johnson likes to call them. I am
not so sure the practice is bad, but a spade needs to be called a spade.
Gordie