EVOLUTION, FRAUD AND DECEPTION

Science advances unsteadily with many false starts and blind alleys. Yesterday’s heresy becomes today’s orthodoxy, today’s hope becomes tomorrow’s despair. It is perfectly OK to advance a theory or hypothesis which is then disproved, that is how proper science advances. Hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusion, debate, falsification, modification, hypothesis amended, discarded or strengthened-this process has largely served mankind well-not least in the field of medicine, in which I have studied and worked all my adult life.

Science has often been misused, but that’s not science’s fault. The information technology revolution allows me to photograph skin cancers and use the digital images to teach doctors and nurses diagnostic skills via on-line tutorials. It also allows phishing scams and boys of 9 or 10 years to watch extreme pornography on their Smartphones. There is some evidence that this is leading to sexual assaults on very young girls by boys not much older.

Science is amoral, but we humans are ethical beings and we need to be ethical about how we do science. This is not always the case.For a recent example of how data was manipulated for political reasons, Google on ‘East Anglia university climate change scandal’. A Nobel laureate in Medicine recently criticised some science jornals for inappropriate behaviour over what they do and do not publish. Scientists are as prone to human weaknesses as other men and women. Peer review and high qualifications do not necessarily eliminate fraud or guarantee that due process will be applied and the truth emerge.

No scientist should be criticised for honestly advancing an idea which is later discredited, only for refusing to accept when it is proved wrong, or, even worse, for putting something forward as real science KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME. This is rightly calledFRAUD. As well as deliberate fraud, there is sometimes enthusiastic over interpretation of a piece of evidence which verges on deception. Evidence can be examines with bias, evidence and lines of enquiry which may point to unwelcome cnclusions or falsify beleoved theories may be ignored or misinterpreted. Confimation boas and refutation bias exist.

Such accusations can fairly be applied to Darwin’s original work. Reading Darwin, we can see that he passionately WANTED his theory to be true. Amongst other things, he asserted that the limited natural variation we see in species today could be assumed to stretch without limits to account for all life forms coming from a single celled common ancestor through the supposedly inexorable force of natural selection acting on naturally occurring variations. But the evidence did not suport this. It was OK for CD to put this forward as a hypothesis for discussion and testing, but it’s not OK to deny the falsifying evidence which is now so abundantly available. People believed in common descent with gradual modification of all life forms from a common ancestor because they WANTED it to be true, not because it was supported by observation. It wasn;t then and stil isn’t today.

Here are some observations on a few of the more significant and influential evolutionist deceptions that we KNOW about. I say WE know about, but in the case of at least 2 of the below, and probably three, the truth is still being suppressed by a powerful establishment which is happy for people to believe the legend rather than the reality

Piltdown man-hoax or fraud?

Oh no, they will groan, not Piltdown Man1 Yes, Piltdown Man. There has been a very skilful establishment damage limitation cover up about this spectacularly successful evolutionist FRAUD.

There have been many examples of enthusiastic over-interpretation of limited evidence as well as some outright fraud during the history of evolution. The Darwin defender will say, for example about the famous Piltdown man fraud, ‘Ah, but this shows how honest and self-correcting science is, for the palaeontologists themselves exposed the fraud.’ Even if we take that statement at face value, and Malcolm Bowden’s meticulous study of the case (leaflet available from Creation Science Movement) gives us strong reasons for not doing so,the fraud was lauded as evidence at the heart of the scientific establishment and used FOR FORTY YEARS to bolster belief in ape to man evolution. Why was the fraud not detected earlier?

Many papers were written on the Piltdown skull. Millions of people will have been persuaded of evolution at least in part by this skilful and deliberate fraud, as was presumably intended, and will have believed it for the rest of their lives and died before the fraud was unmasked. This being the case, it is fair to ask if there has ever been a time since 1857 when there were not one or more frauds in the public mind, helping to make the case, dishonestly. These frauds and near frauds are used for all they are worth by evolutionists for as long as possible, and even when unmasked (who knows how many are still concealed?) the retraction tends to be a paragraph buried inside a newspaper rather than the banner headlines when the ‘discovery’ was announced. The result of this is that in the public mind, what is known to be fraud still stands as good evidence.

It is noteworthy that the Piltdown fraud is still routinely referred to as a hoax, suggesting that some unnamed comedian did it ‘for a laugh’. Cobblers. The term ‘hoax’ is completely inappropriate-hoaxes are done for amusement and the hoaxer usually reveals themselves. A fraud is done dishonestly to make people believe something that isn’t true, in order to further the fraudster’s agenda. This was no joke, it was a deliberate attempt to use carefully constructed lies to persuade people that evolution was true, and it is very likely  that senior establishment figures were involved.

Ape men

We are indoctrinated from the age of 5 into believing that there are fossils which trace the descent (or ascent) of men from ape like ancestors. The fossil evidence on which this assertion is based is incredibly flimsy, it is about 1% evidence and 99% interpretation based on the prior assumption of evolution. But no woman has every given birth to an ape like creature, which we might expect at least occasionally if we contain our ancestor’s DNA.

Pekin man was based on a few bony fragments which subsequently disappeared.

Java man was based on an ape like skull cap and a human femur subsequently discovered 14 yards away.

Neanderthal man was as near to modern humans as makes no difference, bony differences being explicable by poor diet and possibly syplhilis. It is now widely recognised that they were sophisticated beings who interbred with ‘Cro-Magnon’ man and were fully human

Nebraska man-a convenient untruth

Nebraska man was in fact based on the evidence of one tooth, which turned out to be from an extinct peccary, a sort of pig. On the evidence of this tooth, I repeat ONE TOOTH, an artist’s impresion of Nebraska man with his wife and family was created and appeared on the front of a national newspaper. It was never proved beyond doubt that this was a deliberate fraud and conspiracy, but the timing and presentation speak for themselves. The discovery was hyped up world wide as evidence of ape to man evolution at the time of the notorious ‘Scopes monkey trial’ which itself has been grossly and deliberately misrepresented both in the film ‘Inherit the wind’ and popular history to an extent which amounts to lying propaganda.

When the true facts came out some time after the trial, the amount of news coverage given to the exposure of the deception was tiny compared to the trumpeting of the ‘discovery’ that was said to prove evolution. How could it be more obvious that this was indeed a very convenient discovery? And we are still getting the same sort of front page artists impressions of, for example, a supposed population of pre-human ancestors based on a few bits of broken clay pot in a peat bog.

Various ape like fossils such as ‘Lucy’, australopithecus, Flores man etc are from time to time claimed to be missing links between apes and men, but even if these creatures (usually imaginatively reconstructed by artists from tiny fragments of bone) could be arranged along a line which apparently indicated progress from ape like ancestor to man, it would still not prove descent. There is a mixture of conspiracy and fraud here. A lot more could be said about fossils and their interpretation, this is a brief overview.

Haeckel the fraudster

Perhaps the most cynical, and effective, single instance of fraud isHaeckel’s embryo drawings. These are addressed by Jonathan Wells in his illustrated monograph ‘Survival of the Fakest’The German scientist Ernst Haeckel was a convinced evolutionist from the earliest days-he was a friend of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ T E Huxley and like Huxley hated the Christian religion and wanted to see the Christian world view overthrown. He was therefore delighted when Darwin published Origin of Species and Haeckel promoted it for all he was worth, particularly in Germany, where partly as a result of his activism evolutionim was accepted more readily than in most other countries. Haeckel was building a nice career for himself on Evolutionism and like many scientists before and since, decided to take it upon himself to see that the evidence should conform to what he ‘knew’ was true.

Aware that actual evidence to support Darwin’s speculations was, to put in VERY mildly, lacking, Haeckel was keen to produce some, so he quite deliberately faked a series of animal embryo drawings to make it appear that ’embryology recapitulated phylogeny’, in other words, the story of our gradual development by millions of small changes from the most primitive organism via invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, lower mammals and pigs etc. via ape to man could be seen in the development of the embryo. This wasn’t true, but Haeckel wanted it to be true and so he made it so, deliberately making false drawings to ‘prove’ his case.

He was actually found guilty of fraud and reprimanded by a university court at the time, but this was conveniently overlooked and his false drawings and arguments are still used to this day! I was forced to memorise and regurgitate this fraudulent ‘evidence for evolution’ for zoology A level in 1973-74 and, incredibly, they were used at no less than London’s prestigious National Science Museum in 2006. They were only taken down after a protest from Truth in Science. Some of the recent court cases in the USA about school books hinged on the inclusion of these century old frauds in present day school textbooks. So much for the self-correcting nature of science where evolution is concerned.

Haeckel’s life, ethics and legacy are explored in Richard Weikart study ‘From Darwin to Hitler‘ a book about the influence of Darwinism on Nazi thought which I confidently predict will never be serialised on BBC radio 4.

Bathybiuis haeckelii

Bathybius was basically some sludge dredged up from the sea bed which was claimed to be ‘origin of life’ material and given a biological name as if it was a living organism. Perhaps not quite a fraud (although you can never be sure-fraudsters plan their actions carefully and take pains to conceal them) but a seminal example of the extreme willingness of evolutionists to believe what they want to believe is the story of Bathybius haeckelii The second part of the name is illuminating!

This example of the sheer credulity of evolutionists and their willingness to believe what they wanted to believe led to the widespread acceptance of this fake science for 7 years. The same thing goes on today with so called evidence of life on Mars, tales of scientists ‘creating’ life etc.

Basic chemical tests later proved it to be a simple chemical salt. The massive over-interpretation and manipulation of limited evidence to fit prior conclusions has been a feature of evolutistic thinking and strategy from Darwin to the present day. Case weak, shout louder! No questions allowed.

Peppered moth -all hype, no substance

The peppered moth experiment is still taught as proving evolution. Apart from the mind numbingly obvious fact that there were both light and dark variants of the moth biston betularia before the changes in tree bark colour discussed in the work, and that therefore it was merely a cyclical variation in the proportion of slightly different varieties of the same species, it is now established that the researcher Kettlewell carefully planned his experiments to get the results he wanted, as ner to fraud as makes no meaningful difference. And yet this is still being hyped by no less an evolutionist than Professor Steve Jones as an excellent example of evolution in action. However, The peppered moth story is a big con.

Of course, the biggest fraud of the lot is the false assertion that science has established molecules to man evolution as a fact and that there is no falsifying evidence. That is the second biggest lie ever told, the biggest and most consequential lie being the denial of the Creator Himself. These two falsehoods are intimately related.