Here's a little quote from their pre-article article that makes me extremely frustrated at the media.
That observation begs the question: why has so much been so wrong in the evolutionists’ recounting of their story of human evolution, and now it has to be redrawn? Will some science textbooks be seen as obsolete and have to be tossed?Wow. Creationists are using media mis-information as ammunition against evolutionary theory now.
They also make a small criticism of palaeontologists by saying that they don't agree with each other over classifications.
Do some secular scientists already disagree about Sediba’s classification—whether this fossil really should be classified (like the famous “Lucy”) in the genus Australopithecus, or perhaps be better designated as Homo instead?Contrary to what they may believe, genus classifications are rather arbitrary when it comes to defining the point at which an evolutionary line may cross over between genus'. As creationists like Kent Hovind frequently point out, every animal gives birth to its own 'kind'. This is possibly one of the only things that Kent says that is actually true. No animal gives birth to a different kind of animal, but as I've explained before in my misconceptions about evolution posts, species gradually change over time, and if you compare one individual with its parent and with its offspring, they are most certainly the same 'kind' but if you take specimens 1,000 generations either side, they will likely be considered a different 'kind'. So you should be able to see why it is a grey area when defining at what point an evolutionary line transitions from one genus into another, in this case it is from the Australopithecus genus to the Homo genus.
As creationists, we can be confident of one thing: the Creator God created humans distinct from all animals, and we were made in His image and not from an ape-like creature (Genesis 1). By the way, that truth will be presented in a striking new exhibit inside our Creation Museum to be unveiled in a few weeks.
It is obvious to me when AiG say things like this that they really aren't interested in real science. To them, the Bible is 100% true and nothing will ever change about that in their mind. This makes them rather intellectually dishonest, especially considering much of the Bible is demonstrably false already.