My complaint about Craig is that he accepts the myths of human evolution pretty much at face value, without investigation. If Darwin hadn’t sent fossil hunters on a search for early human remains, australopithecines and the other hominids would have been considered early apes. Lucy’s bones match up well with modern bonobos. To this day, no early ape fossils have been found that weren’t immediately declared human ancestors. Humans are now considered apes only by definition, not for any serious scientific reason. We are not 98% genetically similar to chimps, that number is actually closer to 90%, the same as for kangaroos, and most other mammals.
My complaint about Craig is that he accepts the myths of human evolution pretty much at face value, without investigation. If Darwin hadn’t sent fossil hunters on a search for early human remains, australopithecines and the other hominids would have been considered early apes. Lucy’s bones match up well with modern bonobos. To this day, no early ape fossils have been found that weren’t immediately declared human ancestors. Humans are now considered apes only by definition, not for any serious scientific reason. We are not 98% genetically similar to chimps, that number is actually closer to 90%, the same as for kangaroos, and most other mammals.
You might also like this interview I did with Casey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKdFLfBpDSo&list=PLYRpF-ePghZ5pzApItJv1pKdyUOmrcsEy&index=6&t=1042s
You are right to be concerned with this part of his argument. My friend Casey Luskin wrote a bit about this in his own review of Craig's work https://www.discovery.org/a/review-of-william-lane-craigs-in-quest-of-the-historical-adam/