The Lies and Fraud of Science-Part I

A common claim of atheists and theistic evolutionists against Creation Scientists and the ID movement is that they lie and are fraudulent in their research findings and interpretation of research. So let’s take a look for the moment at the lies and fraud perpetuated by naturalistic science.

Let’s start with the evolution of man.

in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.1

So, what was discovered about this ‘proof’?

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.

So, that went on for 40 years. How many lost their faith because evolution had been proven? What was the effect on society and worldviews? The issue wasn’t resolved until after the end of the second World War.

I also have to say, that AiG makes a very balanced statement on this issue:

The Piltdown story is a great tool for the Christian in witnessing; not to try to denigrate evolutionists as foolish (Christians get taken in by all manner of hoaxes, too), but to use as a great illustration of what AiG has long taught, namely that facts have to be interpreted. The worldview ‘glasses’ one is wearing will to a large extent determine what one ‘sees’. Exposing the myth that evolutionary scientists are any more objective than others can help to break down the evolutionary/long-age barriers when seeking to introduce people to the God of the Bible. Through His Word, God has given us a truthful outline of the big picture of history—and thus, the right worldview through which to interpret the facts about the past.

I think the writers at AiG have a better understanding of the biases involved in science than a majority of scientists–particularly evolutionists.

So that’s #1, here’s another:

Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.

The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.2

The formerly favorite phrase of Darwinists on this point is, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words, the development of the individual repeats the development of the species. Another way of putting it is that the embryonic development of the individual passes through all of the prior stages of evolution for the species.

This theory, in the highly elaborate and deterministic form advanced by Haeckel, has, since the early twentieth century, been refuted on many fronts.

…..

For example, Haeckel believed that the human embryo with gill slits (pharyngeal arches) in the neck not only signified a fishlike ancestor, but represented an adult “fishlike” developmental stage. Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function. They are the invaginations between the gill pouches or pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. Gill pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos. In mammals, the first gill bar (in the first gill pouch) develops into the lower jaw (Meckel’s cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. In a later stage, all gill slits close, with only the ear opening remaining open.3

AiG also goes on to say:

Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.

Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.

See the picture below comparing Haekel’s drawings to actual photos.

Haekels Drawings vs. Actual Photographs

Haekel's Drawings vs. Actual Photographs

To be continued with Peppered Moths, Archeoraptor, Scopes Monkey Trial, Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neandertal man, and other frauds of modern science.

Evolutionists would do well to interpret “facts,” knowing that their worldview is an active component of the interpretive process. “Fraud” and “lies” are a common part of science. A skeptical eye must be turned against all science, whether “Creationist,” “IDist,” or “Naturalist.” The naturalistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists have accepted their interpretations of “facts” as “absolute truths,” but history is not on their side.

1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp
2 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny

Advertisements

17 Responses

  1. he worldview ‘glasses’ one is wearing will to a large extent determine what one ‘sees’.

    This statement is really the issue. We’re going to believe what looks right to us through the world-view glasses we’re wearing. For many, there can be no resolution of these issues, because this is what they believe to be true, just as we believe.

    This evidence, as you know, will be blown off by those who believe in evolution. I have heard some say, in just the last two days, “Scientific research is ever changing, since it is a continual process.” I guess, according to this philosophy, they can never be wrong, since anything they were mistaken about yesterday, or fifty years ago, is just part of the natural process of scientific investigation. I can see this, to some extent, but if this is true, then shouldn’t they be cautious about entering their findings in text books, which imply this is credible information?

  2. This statement is really the issue. We’re going to believe what looks right to us through the world-view glasses we’re wearing. For many, there can be no resolution of these issues, because this is what they believe to be true, just as we believe.

    Ah, so you are a relativist after all! Good to know!

  3. I’m teasing, of course. I don’t really believe that DB is a relativist. I only wanted to point out that the statement above in his comment implies relativism, if taken on its face value.

  4. Carl,

    You got me! It does sound relativistic, doesn’t it! I’m relative to some and not so much to others, relatively speaking;-)

  5. Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.

    Yeah, I was the recipient of that teaching in high school biology. I remember to this day, the teacher saying: “just poke some holes in it, and it’s a hydra…”.

    A good reference for some of the other frauds you allude to is:
    “The Death of Evolution” by Wallace Johnson

    Finally, not sure if you’ve come across this recent one yet (the tiktaalic roseae), but it’s another example of evolutionary dogma at it’s best:

    http://www.physorg.com/news143295238.html

    Here we have the mutation of a fish (or it could be just a similar species of fish, I guess). But we are looking at a fish here, are we not? Evolutionists are hailing this fossil as a no-doubt-about-it transitional form. But where’s the evidence of that outside of raw speculation? The biological, physiological and anatomical modifications that would need to happen for a fish to ‘turn into’ a tetrapod are immense (yeah, I think more than a slightly modified skull cavity).

  6. The biological, physiological and anatomical modifications that would need to happen for a fish to ‘turn into’ a tetrapod are immense (yeah, I think more than a slightly modified skull cavity).

    Well, the claim is that many of those immense modifications can actually be seen in Tiktaalik or in older or younger species. (There is never only one transitional species!) So, if you want to play the skeptic, feel free, but that invites this question: what would you want to see in the transitions from fish to tetrapods that you don’t see? In other words, what would it take to convince you? And do you think that the standard of evidence you require is reasonable — in other words, could that standard be met by any paleontological discovery?

    You got me! It does sound relativistic, doesn’t it! I’m relative to some and not so much to others, relatively speaking;-)

    Good! Now, what are you going to do about it? By which I mean, how would you rephrase your comment in order to avoid relativism, if that’s what you want to avoid?

  7. what would you want to see in the transitions from fish to tetrapods that you don’t see? In other words, what would it take to convince you?

    The followinf is excerpted from :
    Darwinism Refuted

    (Please refer to the complete article for many more details)

    A fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land. Basically, its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems would all have to change. Gills would have to change into lungs, fins would have to acquire the features of feet so that they could carry the weight of the body, kidneys and the whole excretory system would have to be transformed to work in a terrestrial environment, and the skin would need to acquire a new texture to prevent water loss. Unless all these things happened, a fish could only survive on land for a few minutes.

    Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.

    No evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain of mutations. The implausible and nonsensical nature of the very idea is obvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists put forward the concept of “preadaptation,” which means that fish acquire the traits they will need while they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory says that fish acquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel the need for these traits, while they are still living in the sea.

    In fact, the alleged “transitional forms” between fish and amphibians are not transitional in the sense that they have very small differences, but in the sense that they can be the best candidates for an evolutionary scenario. Huge anatomical differences exist between the fish most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and the amphibians taken to be their descendants. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins.

    Robert Carroll, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these allegedly related forms:

    “Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.”

    Ninety-one differences over 145 anatomical features… And evolutionists believe that all these were redesigned through a process of random mutations in about 15 million years. To believe in such a scenario may be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other versions of the fish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates that are chosen to be the transitional forms. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, makes a similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinct amphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega:

    And do you think that the standard of evidence you require is reasonable — in other words, could that standard be met by any paleontological discovery?

    How about an accurate mathematical model showing the trajectory of genetic adaptations? How about providing empirical evidence to illustrate, test and verify such a model using living creatures? Where are their “laws of adaptation”? If I throw a ball, I can construct a mathematical model that will allow me to accurately predict where the ball will be at any point based on the laws of physics.

    Of course, we can’t observe evolution in the past with DNA (yet one wonders about that 65 million year old DNA in the T-Rex!!!). But consider: one can now go into space and observe that the earth is not flat. But even before that, were were able to know it wasn’t flat by applying the laws of geometry to our observations from earth, until a precise mathematical model could be proved accurate. I see none of this scientific approach being utilized by evolutionists. Perhaps they
    should be spending their time building a time-travel device so they can observe what really happened, rather than wasting time drawing beautiful artistic illustrations of apes connected together by arrows?

  8. Carl,

    The professor in you is speaking out of turn! I’ve been out of college for thirty plus years and am no longer challenged in this professorial manner! Let me turn the tables: How do you think I would rephrase it?

  9. And do you think that the standard of evidence you require is reasonable — in other words, could that standard be met by any paleontological discovery?

    Sorry, I didn’t accurately address this. I think overwhelming fossil evidence of transitory forms would be convincing. But evolutionists are apparently not interested in that anymore becuase they can explain it all with “punctuated equilibrium”, can’t they?

  10. DB said:

    The professor in you is speaking out of turn! I’ve been out of college for thirty plus years and am no longer challenged in this professorial manner! Let me turn the tables: How do you think I would rephrase it?

    It’s true that the professor in me was speaking (but “out of turn”?). But I don’t know how you should rephrase it. I was simply indicating a problem I saw with how you’d done so. While I’m not a relativist myself, I’m fairly confident that my strategies for avoiding relativism are not one that you’d want to align yourself with. After all, I’m a pragmatist! And the last thing I want to do is put any words into your mouth. No one can speak for you but yourself. If you’d prefer to bow out of this particular conversation, that’s fine by me.

  11. Carl,

    What I said to you was “tongue in cheek.” I didn’t think that what I had said, previously, was that pertinent to this conversation, that’s all. No offense intended!

    I think my original statement was relative in nature, but, as with you, I don’t wish to put words in other people’s mouths or force my beliefs on anyone. My original point, which was evidently put forth poorly, was that maybe we are wasting each other’s time, to some extent, on these issues, since we’re going to hold to our “world view” and beliefs, unless, of course, we choose to reconsider our positions.

    You strongly believe what you profess, and this is true of us also, and I guess, in saying that, I am making a somewhat relative statement.

  12. I think in some ways, whatever we believe, is somewhat relativistic in nature. I also believe, absolutely, that absolute truth and absolute morality exist. But, in the fallen nature of humans, we may not be capable of discerning or comprehending this (the absolutes) completely. For believers, I think the best we can do, is to rely on what God has revealed to us. It’s not random that He has revealed these things. It is because it is in our best interests, and because He is Good. He is the definition of Good. Every single day, I, and every other human, fall short of this Goodness. This is why the sacrifice of Christ covers our sins. The Father looks at us, and sees Jesus. For this, I am utterly glad. If He saw me, it would not be ‘Good’ in any way.

  13. Carl said,

    If you’d prefer to bow out of this particular conversation, that’s fine by me.

    Didn’t answer your question here! Yes, I would, since this has nothing to do with the Shrink’s post. Thanks!

  14. Fine by me, DB. But for what it’s worth, I think you’ve pointed out a real problem, which is this: if world-views play a role in the interpretation of evidence, then either all world-views are equal (i.e. relativism) or we need a way of evaluating world-views. But according to what criteria can we evaluate world-views, if the very criteria themselves are “internal” to any world-view?

    Still, I’ll happily admit that this is a far cry from the topic of this particular post, and I’ll leave off for now. I’ll come back later on and respond to Mike’s points above about models of tetrapod evolution.

  15. That’s why we have laws, wars, propaganda, revolutions, terrorism, politics, religion etc….

    Everyone basically wants to decide right and wrong for themselves (I think we’ve been down this road before a la the original sin discussion). But this always leads to death in our world-end. Does it not? Perhaps the criteria should be that which might enable us to live forever? Perhaps the search should start there?

  16. Perhaps the criteria should be that which might enable us to live forever? Perhaps the search should start there?

    I have absolutely no interest in starting there, so I’ll be politely bowing out of that conversation.

  17. Regarding the fish-to-tetrapod article I cited:

    “What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.”

    I must point out that I have no idea what the author is referring to here. In the original article, he seems to be discussing the Larmarkian view, but then discounts it, yet makes this statement. I further confused the matter by editing out the Larmarkian comments in my edited repost above.

    I have emailed the site (Darwinrefuted.com) and asked them to clarify if this statement is referring to the now-rejected Lamarkian view that an animal evolves traits through use of specific anatomy. Have not gotten an answer on that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: