Human Fossil Footprints: Exploring the Fringes of Creationism

It is easy to forgot that all movements have fringe elements that can be an embarrasement to the mainstream group.  Many consider creationism itself a fringe group but then make mistake of not realizing that even fringe groups have fringes themselves.
It is easy to forget that all movements have fringe elements that can be an embarrassment to the mainstream group. Many consider creationism itself a fringe group and so are prone to thinking that all creationists believe the same thing and forgetting  that even fringe groups can have fringes themselves.   Here I explore some of the fringe elements of creationism to show that even creationists are embarrassed by the claims of some people that call themselves creation scientists.

A friend of mine recently gave me a book that he had found at a local library book sale knowing that I have an interest in creationist’ writings.  The book,  Evolution and Human Fossil Footprints, was written by an Aaron Judkins. I assumed the focus of the book would be on the Paluxy “man” tracks in Texas but I had never heard of the author.  I found the latter interesting because I have a deep knowledge of creationist literature having followed it intensely for 20 years and so encountering something new was rather unusual.   A quick search revealed that Judkins has published multiple books on creationism and a website promoting his work in “forbidden archaeology” and “forbidden history.”

Examining the back of the book I found an endorsement by Dr. Carl Baugh of Paluxy dinosaur/human tracks fame.  This was the smoking gun to determining Judkin’s creationist pedigree because this is a name with which I am very familiar.   Dr. Baugh is really quite infamous for his outlandish claims of fossil finds and interpretations of geology in a young earth context. I say infamous because he is so far out there on the fringes of young-earth creationism that even Ken Ham has considered him an untrustworthy source of either scientific or theological information.

How A. Judkins has been promoting himself recently. It woudl probably be more accurate to put the “maverick” first in the discription.

Many years ago, Answers in Genesis maintained a web page devoted to explaining to their followers the reasons why Dr. Baugh’s teaching should be avoided. Other Young-earth Creationist’s (YECs) organizations have also steered clear of Dr. Baugh and his “Creation Evidence Museum” in Glen Rose, Texas.  Baugh is what I refer to as person who resides on the fringes of a fringe group.

The back cover of "Evolution and Human Fossil Footprints" by Aaron Judkins. Click to see large image where your can read Baugh's endorsement and Judkins description of himself.
The back cover of “Evolution and Human Fossil Footprints” by Aaron Judkins. Click to see large image where your can read Baugh’s endorsement and Judkins description of himself.

So how does Judkins fit into the world of Dr. Baugh.  Judkins has followed closely in the footsteps of Baugh having “studied” the fossils at Baugh’ museum and personally examined the Paluxy tracks site, and his books are published by the same publisher (Bible Belt Publishing) which is apparently a self-publishing outfit.  “Dr.” Judkins received his Ph.D from a Bible college in California that I’ve already forgotten the name of and it isn’t worth my time to look up again but I remember that it was a correspondence school and clearly a diploma mill (i.e. a pay for a degree operation with little or no academic oversight).  Other members of this same school have also been published by the same publisher.  The book jacket says he has his doctorate in Biblical Studies but on his website it says it is in Biblical Archaeology.

All this is to say that Judkins is a self-made promoter of creation science.  But that isn’t all, he has appeared on many late-night radio shows to discuss fallen angels, aliens as returning Nephilim, various “forbidden” theories about archeological finds etc..  So his fringe calling card goes well beyond being just an outspoken creation scientist but also includes many other causes.

Judkins’ book is not worth reviewing, it is mostly a compilation of quotes from other creation science material in which he manages to add his own misconceptions of the interpretations of other creationist whose own works are fraught with scientific misconceptions.  So you can image how contorted some of the scientific deductions and claims are in this book.  Of course, Judkins main interest is in what he thinks is slam-dunk evidence against evolution:  the identification of human footprints found in all ages of rocks around the world many times in conjunction with dinosaurs.

Were such fossil footprints shown conclusively to be authentic, they clearly would challenge mainstream geological and biological theories for the origins of the earth and life on that earth.  Below is a picture of just one such proof that Judkin’s offers up, that man walked with the dinosaurs.  I would agree that this footprint in this picture is no doubt the shape of a human foot and that the other footprint could be that of a dinosaur. However, I would expect that even an amateur paleontologist would be skeptical that one or both of these footprints was authentic.

The Delk dinosaur and human footprint fossil as can be seen in the Creation Evidences Museum in Paluxy TX.  Probably the most important fossil in the world should it be shown to be authentic.  The fossil has supposedly been subject to rigorous examination but that hasn't even gotten "mainstream" creationist organizations to recognize its validity.
The Delk dinosaur and human footprint fossil as can be seen in the Creation Evidences Museum in Paluxy TX. Probably the most important fossil in the world should it be shown to be authentic. The fossil has supposedly been subject to rigorous examination but that hasn’t even gotten “mainstream” creationist organizations to recognize its validity.
This is a human fossil footprint from Ileret, Kenya.  This footprint is widely accepted as an authentic footprint fossil  (center) beside a foot (right) and color-contoured 3D laser scan image (left) of the print.  This fossil was found in relatively young rock that is thought to have formed from a volcanic ash event after which someone walked across the new ash prior to its preservation. (Credit: Brian Richmond/George Washington University)
This is a human fossil footprint from Ileret, Kenya. This footprint is widely accepted as an authentic footprint fossil (center) beside a foot (right) and color-contoured 3D laser scan image (left) of the print. This fossil was found in relatively young rock that is thought to have formed after volcanic ash event which someone walked across probably after a light rainfall event. The ash then hardened and was buried until recently when the layers above eroded to expose these prints.   (Credit: Brian Richmond/George Washington University)

This rock was donated to the Creation Evidence Museum (Dr. Baugh’s museum) by a friend of the museum with no documentation of origin.  But the museum states that it has been “thoroughly tested” for authenticity by those associated with the museum.

Judkins reports many other footprints in his book each of which have been roundly dismissed as real by even the majority of creationists.

So why spend time writing about an unknown author such as Dr. Judkins?

I present Dr. Judkins to you in order to illustrate that even fringe groups have fringe groups and that too often I see creation/evolution discussions devolve into claims and evidence being thrown around without considering the source.  Secular scientists are prone to thinking that all creationists are the same and are apt to quote mine books like Judkins sometimes without realizing that the book represents a very small minority among creationists most of whom would be appalled by much of the content of this book.  Likewise, creationists are often unaware of the various fringe theories in evolutionary biology and treat every single hypothesis ever uttered in the scientific literature as if it represents evolutionary biologists or geologists as a whole.  Or more importantly, they treat every hypothesis every proposed as if they are all equally supported by the evidence.

There is something we could call standard mainstream creationism.  That would include a short like of positions, viewpoints and accepted evidence that all creationists share.  But it should not be surprising that creationism should have a diversity of positions and equally diverse advocates underneath its common umbrella.

I think there is a good reason I did not know of Aaron Judkins prior to being handed this book. Groups like Ham’s Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research assiduously avoid ever mentioning black sheep like Judkins or Baugh.  In fact, a search of both of these websites turned up exactly zero hits for Judkins and only two hits for Baugh both of which were rather secondary references.  Answers in Genesis removed their page of warnings about Baugh years ago apparently deciding it was better to ignore these fringe members of the creationist community than to bring attention to them.

All movements, ideologies, communities, etc.. have their uncles that they wish they didn’t have.  It is always difficult to know just how much attention one should pay to these outcasts and misfits of the community.  For YECs, if they ignore them they take the risk that their followers will be led astray and absorb their bad ideas thinking they are a legitimate source of information.  Engage with them and risk giving them legitimacy in their own eyes and in the eyes of those that are not knowledgeable in the field.

Most creationists groups have taken the first approach and given no public attention to the many Ken Ham wannabes out there that are even less discriminating in their use of data and argumentation.  To think that Ken Ham is discriminating may seem unbelievable, but there are many YECs that are far less discriminating.  Unfortunately—for Ken Ham and for the sake of reasonable discourse—I think that many scientists that are unfamiliar with creationists are unable to discriminate between Ken Ham, his followers and those who are on the fringes of the creation science phenomena.

This is partly because of AIG and ICR’s reluctance to call-out bad creation science in public (maybe because it is so difficult to identify?).  However, I expect they work behind the scenes to dissuade church leaders from inviting Judkins and others from speaking about creationism and are probably quite successful in constricting the ministries of those they find to be out of step with mainstream creationists thinking.

When the fringe becomes the norm…

I should add though that I am very surprised that Ken Ham’s appeared at a conference with Eric Hovind of  Eric Hovind has played up his being on the same stage with Ham, obviously reveling in the legitimacy that Ham appearance has given his ministry. I say I’m surprised because Eric has taken over his father’s creation ministry.  His Father, Kent Hovind, has nearly the same reputation as Dr. Baugh with respect to his over-the-top claims and his son is very much following in his footsteps. Answers in Genesis once had a warning about Hovind that was very similar to its warning about the teachings of Baugh but now they not only have removed that but have a friendly association.  Of course, the fact that Eric attended Jackson Hole Bible College which was co-founded by Ken Ham might have something to do with this new connection.  Both the elder and young Hovind have made many outlandish claims as part of their ministries and rather than separating from them there has been a greater kinship developing over time.  While Ham has hinted that Hovind’s views have moderated somewhat I don’t believe that is true based on my reading of Hovid’s materials.  Rather, I think it is Ham that has changed over time.

It has become somewhat apparent to those that have followed Ham for many years that he has grown progressively more radical in his views.  He has clearly become more outspoken and harsh in his language and has become progressively less and less discriminating about the types of data that he is willing to accept as supportive of his positions. It isn’t just his interpretations of scientific data but even his Biblical hermeneutics has become more distorted.

In effect, I would assert that Ken Ham, over time, has begun to look more and more like what was once the fringes of the creations science. However, Ken Ham cannot, by definition, become the fringe to a fringe group because he is so influential that he defines what mainstream is for creation science.  Until he is no longer the de-facto spokesperson for creation science Ken Ham will continue to shape and define the boundaries of what is and isn’t part of the young earth creationists worldview.   What he may find is that there is a growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction even among young earth advocates that his brand of creationism is not what is best for the evangelical church.  Someday he may find that his organization will end up as the fringe of a new mainstream form of creationism.

5 thoughts on “Human Fossil Footprints: Exploring the Fringes of Creationism

  1. Don’t know if I’ll get an answer to this, but do you know if you could look up where Judkins got his degree? I am trying to track down the source of his Ph.D. since it isn’t on his website, but I keep hitting dead ends, and this is the only lead I’ve got. Thanks.


    1. That’s a good question. I thought maybe he doesn’t have a PhD and just calls himself a doctor as some YECs I’ve run into have as a general term or others assume and call him that. But this article claims that he has a doctorate in Biblical Archaeology. From the article: “For years, he pursued archaeology as a hobby and found the time while working in the medical field to earn his doctorate in archaeology from Bible Believer’s Christian College and Seminary in Los Angeles.” He probably took a few courses there or a couple on-line course and wrote a paper reviewed by one or two people. If he had a doctorate from a reputable source he would no doubt flaunt it as much as he can.


  2. I first met Aaron Judkins at the infamous “Taylor Site” in the Paluxy riverbed over 15 years ago, at which time he described himself as an independent researcher wanting to better understand the Paluxy tracks. He said he had not yet formed firm conclusions about them, but knew of my research and wanted to interview me on film about it. I reluctantly agreed, which I now regret, since he turned out to be someone entirely different from what he had represented. He acknowledged being a YEC, and when I asked if he was working with Baugh or had any affiliation with him, he said no, none whatsoever. However, only days later I found Judkins working behind the counter at Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum, actively supporting Baugh’s claims to visitors. Sicne then Judkins has often misrepresented me, my work, and the Paluxy tracks in many ways, and has continued to support and work with Baugh and other die-hard Paluxy “man track” advocates.
    Noah Edwards, a bright young paleontology student who has assisted my Paluxy work the last couple years, wrote a blog article about Judkins and his dubious track and credential claims here:
    The Delk Footprint shown in Joel’s article has been heavily promoted by Baugh and his associates.. However,both the “human” and “dinosaur” track on the slab show numerous indicators of being outright carvings. Moreover, the host location has never been pin-pointed, and the track is not endorsed by any major YEC group. I wrote a detailed critique of it here:
    Although the Paluxy tracks were once actively promoted by many creationists, none of the major groups still do. In fact, since the mid 1980’s, soon after I detailed refutations of them and held on-site meetings with John Morris and other ICR reps, ICR and AIG have advised that their followers to not cite the tracks as evidence against evolution. Although never properly explained in their backpedalling statements, the “man tracks” involve a variety of spurious phenomena, with the majority being infilled metatarsal (heel-impressed) dinosaur tracks, a lesser number being erosional markings and natural irregularities (not tracks of any kind, and often selectively highlighted to look more human), and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks). Despite all this, ICR’s John Morris (who once actively promoted the Paluxy claims) continues to call the Paluxy tracks “mysterious” and in need of more research (even though he has done no research there for many years), and hints that some my turn out to be human after all, as he did in a 2012 Acts and Facts article. He does this by oversimplifying and misrepresenting many aspects of the evidence. Moreover, ICR continues to sell some books (such as The Genesis Flood) which promote Paluxy “man track” claims, without any qualification or disclaimer. For more details, including analyses of the various tracks once called human by many YECs, and still promoted by Baugh, Judkins, Don Patton, Ian Juby, and handful of other “fringe of the fringe” YECs, see my Paluxy website:

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: