Sorry but this is wrong.
History: from O.Fr. historie, from L. historia "narrative, account, tale, story," from Gk. historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from base *weid- "to know," lit. "to see". Related to Gk. idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In M.E., not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested late 15c.
History is based on eyewitness testimony ''to see, to know'', the existance of ancient writings is based on what people observed then.
''...real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened.'' - Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.
Creationists believe man appeared from the beginning capable of writing and being able to build.
Woops, sorry, bad phrasing on my part - my point is, I'm not denying that history needs people to write it down, I'm pointing out that just because we weren't writing down our history before 4000 BC or whenever, that doesn't mean we didn't exist prior to that point.
And any objections to this are usually based on a strawman argument of what evolution is claiming - instantaneous appearance of a written historical tradition is simply not an expected observation of evolutionary theory. Surtees made some reference to big brains, but that's looking at it with a massive degree of hindsight. The big brains are what allowed up to develop tools etc, and eventually more abstract concepts like language and history after time had passed.
As to the timescale expected for this, I don't know enough to say, suffice it to say that if survival wasn't immediately dependent on having a written historical tradition then it won't have appeared immediately until our relationship to our environment had changed.
The fact that there is evidence of prehistoric (clue's in the name) man goes against what creationism suggests is the case - so I would say on this one creationism comes out the weaker here.
Archeology vs. Evolution
No Evolution Here
Ok, we're onto archaeology again, I think we should make the arguments involving history and archaeology a bit more distinct, although there is some overlap during times covered by the historical record.
I'm not sure what this article is expecting to prove regarding evolution, i.e. an origins concept, when the Tower of Babel has nothing to do with it. I forget the name of the logical fallacy the author is committing here, but even if they showed one bit of the Bible to be true, that wouldn't mean it's all true. And even then, there is nothing like the kind of evidence presented to show that it is a 17/70 km high tower, and even then, why should that threaten God when we've sent space probes out of the solar system and been to the moon?
