This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Dr. Carl Baugh

Young Earth Creationist and proponent of the belief that men and dinosaurs lived together.

Contents

• Biography
• Beliefs
• Books and Articles
• Giant Human Skeleton
• Fossilized Finger from the Age of the Dinosaurs
• Fossilized Hammer Found in 100-Million-Year Old Rock
  • Answers in Genesis Rebuttal
  • Modern Concretions
  • Summary
• Credentials
• Other Sites on Carl Baugh
• Viewer Feedback - What did viewers think of this article?

See also Fossil Hoaxes

Biography

Founder and Director of the Creation Evidence Museum chartered in Texas in 1984 for the purpose of researching and displaying scientific evidence for creation.

Has appeared on CBS TV Network Specials: “The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark” and “Ancient Secrets in the Bible”
Appeared on NBC TV Network Special: “Mysterious Origins of Man”

Dr. Baugh is Co-Director of a research team searching for Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

He has led three scientific expeditions into the rain forests of Papua New Guinea in search of living pterodactyls.

See his biography and website

Beliefs

Man and dinosaur lived together.  See The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy.  He also claims a fossilized human finger has been found from the Cretaceous period (A period dominated by dinosaurs). See Fossil Finger below.

His beliefs and teachings are such that even other creationists keep their distance.  Excerpt from Answers In Genesis (one of the largest Young Earth Creationism organizations):

Sorry to say, AiG [Answers in Genesis] thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter

Carl Baugh's Books and Articles

• Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds?
• Panorama of Creation
• Footprints and the Stones of Time
• Dinosaur

Giant Human Skeleton

Carl Baugh presents this photo as proof of giants in the past.  He claims this skeleton is 11'6" tall.  But neither he nor anyone else can provide any verifiable details of the source of this photo or what happened to the remains.  The photo itself reveals a number of clues that would make one think it is a hoax.  More>>>

Fossilized Finger from the Age of the Dinosaurs

Baugh claims a fossilized human finger has been found from the Cretaceous period (A period dominated by dinosaurs).

The Creation Evidence Museum acquired a fossilized human finger in the mid 1980s. It was found by a landowner where road gravel was being quarried from the Cretaceous Walnut Formation of the Commanche Peak limestone. Recent advances in C.T. scanning techniques have yielded some astounding pictures of the interior of this fossil. These pictures and other studies show that this is indeed the finger of someone who was rapidly buried in a catastrophic event long ago. [The Fossilized Human Finger]

His critics contend:

The alleged fossilized finger promoted by Baugh and associates is more likely just an interesting shaped rock or concretion. I was allowed to personally examine the "finger" several years ago, and saw nothing in it to suggest it is a fossil of any sort. Nor do I know any mainstream scientist or [sic] regards it as a fossilized finger. Contrary to the suggestions in the NBC show, it does not show bones in the CT scans. The dark area in the center of the scans are not well defined and are likely due to differences in the density of rock at the middle of the concretion, or the greater mass of rock the rays passed through at the center than the edge of the rock. Last, a key point that Baugh did not reveal in the show is that the "finger" was not found in situ*, but rather in a loose gravel pit some distance from Glen Rose. Therefore, like the Burdick print it cannot be reliably linked to an ancient formation, and is of no antievolutionary value, even if it were a real fossilized finger. [A Review of NBC's "The Mysterious Origins of Man"]

* Note: in situ means in the place where it occurred.

Fossilized Hammer Found in 100-Million-Year Old Rock

Note: This is also known as the London Artifact.

To be fair, Carl Baugh's webpage for this fossil does not make all of these claims.  He merely poses them as questions about the hammer.  These questions are then embellished and perpetrated as claims by other creationists.  But, since these claims are widespread (search the web for "London fossilized hammer"), they will be addressed here.

Critics contend:

Even Answers In Genesis (a leading creationist organization) discredits this hoax.  From Unleashing the Storm

The Texas hammer is an example—it is a classic concretion around an iron artifact, like the ‘fossil pliers’, which we showed in our magazine. It is not buried in sedimentary rock, but a concretion. There are many reasons to think it may well have been a miner’s hammer that dropped down a crack and the concretion formed later. In fact the reason why people say that the rock is ‘supposed by evolutionary reckoning to be 135 million years old’ is apparently because there are some shells in the concretion which are typical of that ‘period’. Unfortunately, the same shells have a range which extends to the present, so they are not at all diagnostic of that age of rock. The allegation about the apparently anomalous metal structure of the hammer has never been, to our knowledge, published in the peer-reviewed creationist literature, e.g. testing the assertion that ‘an alloy of iron with chlorine cannot be made in its present atmospheric condition.’ But in any case there is no such thing—chlorine is simply not an element that can form a metallic alloy, as opposed to an ionic compound with a metal.

From An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact (This gives a very detailed account of the hammer)

Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims. Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).

Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.

Cole also noted that the hammer is of "recent American historic style," and concluded that it was probably a 19th century miner's hammer.  He also notes that other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers.

A number of sites that describe this hammer claim that it was analyzed by Batelle Laboratories.  However, the February 1985 issue of creationist journal Creation Ex Nihilo, stated "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error." (An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact)

Some claim that it has "a unique coating of FeO, which does not readily form under present atmospheric conditions, appears to inhibit rusting."  Carl Baugh’s own webpage states:

"There are reports that the file mark may contain FeO."

But, it’s his hammer.  Surely, he should KNOW (and be able to list) any reports and what they say, and not have to speculate about if it were true.

Some contend that the rock-hammer must be the age of the surrounding cretaceous rock that it was found in.  But there is no reason to believe this, since the rock-hammer was, according to the people who found it, a loose rock.  It also doesn't have any sharp edges.  This indicates that it formed as a separate rock and was not broken from another rock.  There is no reason to believe that it formed at the same time the nearby rocks formed.  Its ancient-dating claim is based on the fact that it contains shells in it.  Baugh won't let it be properly examined to determine exactly what type of shells they are, but they appear to be of recent origin.

Note: If this was a legitimate archaeological find, then one would think Baugh would be demanding that it be properly examined and catalogued.  But, instead he avoids having it professionally examined.

Concretions, such as this hammer was found in, are common geological formations.  From Concretions, Bombs, and Ground Water

Perhaps the most unusual concretion nuclei are found in a modern coastal salt marsh in England. Siderite (FeCO3) concretions in the marsh formed around World-War-II era military shells, bombs, and associated shrapnel, including some large unexploded shells (Al-Agha et al., 1995). A British geologist studying these concretions realized this only after striking a large unexploded shell repeatedly with his rock hammer (yes, he lived to tell about it)! The concretions formed preferentially around the military debris because it provided an abundant source of iron for the siderite.

Concretions are known to form around metal objects and can do so in a matter of a few decades.

If Baugh had found one of these WWII shells, would he be claiming the ancients had modern weaponry?

To summarize:

• A hammer that by all appearances is an 1800's miner's hammer that was found in an area of Texas that was a mining area in the 1800's.
• It's covered by a rock concretion that is well known to occur in a just a few decades, as demonstrated by the WWII artifacts that have had the same thing happen to them.
• The claim that it was analyzed by Batelle Laboratories appears to be false.
• The claim that it inhibits rusting is false, since it clearly has rusted.  Eye witnesses to when the rock was opened said that it was not shiny then.
• Other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers.
• Its ancient dating claim is based on the fact that it contains shells in it.  Baugh won't let it be properly examined to determine exactly what type of shells they are, but they appear to be of recent origin.
• Its owner is known for a string of hoaxes.
• He won't let it be properly examined.
• He won't submit his claims to the appropriate journals or archaeological societies.

More information

• The London Artifact: An Iron Hammer In Stone - Has some good pictures.

Carl Baugh's Credentials

• Doctor of Theology (2005, Louisiana Baptist University)
• Doctor of Philosophy in Education (1989, Pacific College of Graduate Studies*)
• Masters in Archaeology (1984, Pacific College of Graduate Studies*)

*Pacific College of Graduate Studies is a small religious school run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson.  Some describe it as a diploma mill.  Baugh's dissertation was titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and dinosaurs were Contemporary."

Louisiana Baptist University also seems to have dubious credentials.  See http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

The point of this is not to create an ad hominem attack.  Regardless of his credentials, his ideas may still be correct.  However, it does speak to his integrity and should serve as a warning to view his other claims with a grain of salt.

Talk Origins has a detailed account of Dr. Baugh's credentials and lists other questionable claims about his credentials.  The Shady Credentials of Carl E. Baugh by Daniel Morgan also has a detailed list of his credential claims.

Other Sites on Carl Baugh

• Wikipedia - Carl Baugh
• Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies
• Giant Humans and Dinosaurs
• What About Carl Baugh? A Commentary by Answers in Genesis

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

2005-11-24 Anonymous wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

2005-12-08 Daniel Morgan (Atheistic Evolutionist) wrote
So So, Factual, Fair and Balanced

You ought to provide some additional references:
*The wikipedia article about Baugh-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_baugh
Glen Kuban's work--
* A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials by Glen J. Kuban, NCSE Reports Vol 9, No. 6, Nov-Dec. 1989. (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm)
* The Carl Baugh Page by John Stear (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/carl_baugh_page.htm)
* S. Daniel Morgan's work--The Shady Credentials of Carl E. Baugh by Daniel Morgan (http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmorgan/baugh.htm)

--my blog: http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/

2006-01-29 Anonymous wrote
Please write also in Italian
Thank you

epicidiot reply: I wish I could.  I spent some time in Italy while in the Navy and it was one of my favorite places.  But sadly, even though I took a Berlitz course in Italian, all I learned was numbers, foods, and "Lo unireste alla nostra tabella" (Would you join me at our table).  That covers the three basic needs of a sailor on leave: Shopping, eating, and meeting the locals.

2006-03-13 Anonymous, Atheistic Evolutionist, wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

2006-09-15 Anonymous wrote
Bogus, Biased to Evolution
show the modern photograph of a man standing next to the actual bone of a giant person, I saw one on the internet in color, if I found it relatively easy, you can to. Stop bashing Dr. Baugh, you only belittle yourself.

epicidiot reply: Anyone can Photoshop together a photograph and put it on the Internet. Why aren't the bones in a museum or reputable scientific publication? I've seen plenty of fake photos on the Internet and I'm not going to hunt down and comment on every one. If you have a particular one that you think is worth commenting one, please provide the web address for it, I would love to see it.  Otherwise, until you actually present your evidence, I'll assume you've merely been duped.  If you're too lazy to present your evidence, then don't criticize me for not commenting on it.

My goal is not to bash Carl Baugh, but to expose what I believe are invalid teachings by Baugh. Which of my comments about Baugh do you think are wrong?  If you have evidence that my comments are wrong, then present it. I will post it. But it seems you would rather be lied to by Baugh than face the truth.
As for belittling myself, if pointing out the truth is belittling, then I'd rather "belittle" myself than be a liar.

2006-11-16 Old Earth Creationist wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced

2006-11-30 Judy, Old Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
Having watched and listened to Dr. Carl Baugh's edifying, interesting and biblically accurate program; I have nothing but respect and confidence in the teachings of Dr Baugh, and I have tentative plans to visit his Creation Museum. The fact that he experiences denigration and criticism from the converts to the Darwinist "fairy tale" is to be exppected... "So What". I agree with Dr Baugh that "micro" evolution is a fact; but Not "macro" evolution, which Can Not be scientifically proven. In fact, the passe "theory of evolution" is a Crock!!!

epicidiot reply: The discussion of Carl Baugh is more about his misrepresentation of known facts and absurd claims than it is about whether or not evolution is correct.
As I stated above, my goal is not to bash Carl Baugh, but to expose what I believe are invalid teachings by Baugh.
Which of my criticisms of Baugh do you think are wrong?  If you have evidence that my criticisms are wrong, then present it. I will post it. But it seems you would rather be lied to by Baugh than face the truth.