Two Interpretations of New Australian Aborigine DNA Study

by Ken Ham
Featured in Ken Ham Blog

We’ve pointed out many times that the topic of creation vs. evolution isn’t science vs. the Bible or science vs. religion. It’s one interpretation of the evidence competing with a different interpretation of the evidence. I thought I would use a new study that came out of my homeland of Australia as an example to show you how this works.

Looking Through Secular Lenses

Researchers are studying hairs from Australian aborigines to “help reconnect indigenous families with ancestral communities.” Here are their conclusions and interpretations based on the genetic data:

  • “Aboriginal Australians descended from a single population that arrived 50,000 years ago from New Guinea, when it was joined to Australia.”
  • “The first populations spread rapidly. Within 2,000 years people had circled the east and west coasts before meeting somewhere in South Australia.”
  • The lead author of the study says, “The amazing bit is that they don’t seem to move again once they’ve done that . . . that basic pattern has held for 50,000 years.”

Notice how I said interpretations of the data. This is a secular interpretation starting with the idea of millions of years of earth history. For example, the 50,000 number isn’t based on observational science—it comes from a worldview-based interpretation of the evidence and circular reasoning.

Looking Through the Lens of Scripture

Now, let’s look at this study through the lens of Scripture, starting with the history recorded in God’s Word.

  • Australian aborigines are descended from a single population. That’s no surprise! At the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11), God split the human population into various language groups. These groups spread out across the earth and this one group ended up in Australia.
  • From New Guinea. Now, this likely doesn’t come from empirical data, but is an inference from geology. Well, creationists have said for a long time that the aborigines, as well as kangaroos, koalas, and other Australian animals, came to Australia via land bridges that would’ve been exposed during the Ice Age.
  • The populations spread rapidly . . . they don’t seem to move again once they’ve done that. Now, let’s look at this—would a human population really travel and colonize a new land and then stay put for 50,000 years? This makes much more sense when interpreted within the short time frame of a few thousand years since Babel.

The difference between creation and evolution isn’t the data—it’s a difference in the interpretation of the same data. One model starts with man’s fallible word and ideas about the past. The other starts with God’s infallible eyewitness account. On which foundation will you start your thinking?

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Ken Ham’s Daily Email

Email me with Ken’s daily email:

Privacy Policy

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390