Evolutionary Fraud
Professional scientists
probably rank higher in honesty and in integrity in the eyes of most Americans
than in almost any other profession.
After all, these men and women are "scientists" and everyone knows
that scientists have no axes to grind.
Their only interest is in the discovery of truth with a capital
"T". Men and women of science
have no hidden agenda; they are merely searching for the answers to the
mysteries of the universe--whatever those answers happen to be. If their discoveries run counter to long-held
beliefs and opinions, scientists are willing to change when new evidence is
presented. Is this your view of science
and of scientists?
As a rule, our confidence in
scientists is so great that when they speak on topics outside their particular
disciplines we tend to accept their pronouncements if they came down from
Our respect and reverence
for scientists probably stems to a great degree from the spectacular work many
scientists have done in the past fifty or so years. Technological advances in my lifetime almost
defy the imagination: television, supersonic travel, space exploration, medical
advances and hundreds and hundreds of other accomplishments. To the average man these inventions and
discoveries seem almost miraculous. How
can we avoid standing in awe of these men and women who have done so much in
such a short time? Surely such
scientists would never besmirch the good name of science to sustain their pet
theories.
I am not ungrateful for
those inventions and discoveries which make our lives more comfortable--air conditioning,
safe automobiles, computers, refrigerators, dishwashers, and such like. But all of these scientific advances must be
examined in a realistic light. We must
not place too much faith in science and in scientists. Scientists--whether biological, geological or
otherwise--are men and women with the same temptations, the same weaknesses and
the same ambitions which characterize the rest of the human family. Some scientists are desperately searching for
some fact or discovery which will make them famous and perhaps even
immortal. They would like to go down in
history books alongside Louis Pasteur, Sir Francis Bacon, James Watson, Francis
Crick, Joseph Lister, and Jonas Salk.
But that ambition must not be allowed to cover up any fraudulent
activities.
Am I implying that some
scientists would actually fudge a little on their experiments or discoveries to
prove their brilliance? Would they skew
the results of their research to prove their own theories and biases? It is my considered judgement that the
majority of scientists would not be unfair or dishonest for any reason, but
there are some who have been dishonest and probably some who will be dishonest
in the future.
Tragically, the training
some scientists receive in American colleges and universities leads them in the
direction of fraud and deception. Their
education--especially in the biological sciences--may actually prejudice them
in such a way they may not be able to understand some truths. Actually, no one--scientist or otherwise--is
completely free from bias. All of
us--including scientists and theologians--must make a concerted effort not to
allow our prejudices to prevent our seeing the truth when it is presented to
us.
Tragically and inexplicably,
frauds have been perpetrated by scientists in all academic
disciplines--chemistry, biology, anthropology, sociology and psychology--but I
am concentrating today on scientific frauds which were designed to establish
the theory of evolution. I am calling our
lesson today "Evolutionary Fraud."
Please listen with an open mind.
If you have questions or comments, I would be delighted to hear from
you.
Although evolutionary
theories of man's origin have been around for thousands of years, defining
evolution is not an easy task. One of
the reasons that it is so difficult to define evolution is because there are so
many different theories of evolution--organic, theistic, emergent,
saltatory--and others. Negatively,
evolution does not just mean change, although obviously change is involved in
all theories of evolution. Everyone who
has his eyes open knows that changes take place in the world of living
organisms. All living creatures
experience some change on a regular basis.
Many kinds of sheep, cattle, hogs, dogs and cats have undergone enormous
changes in the past several hundred years.
The changes I am describing are generally called
"microevolution" as opposed to "macroevolution." "Microevolution" refers to small
changes which occur in plants and animals.
"Macroevolution" says, in effect, that one animal can become a
different kind of animal over a period of time.
"Macroevolution" is what most people have in mind when they
speak of the theory of evolution.
Actually, the word "microevolution" ought not to be used at
all since it is confusing in the minds of many people. Small changes occur within various kinds of
animals--as almost all people will freely admit--but a fish does not become a
dog nor a fish a bird. Such radical
changes have not occurred and cannot. It
is biologically impossible.
One of the very best books
available on evolution was written by Dr. John Klotz, professor of natural
science, Concordia Senior College, Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Dr. Klotz's book has the title, Genes,
Genesis and Evolution, and was published in 1972 by Concordia Publishing
House, St. Louis, MO. Dr. Klotz provides
the following definition of evolution.
"It is the concept that nonliving materials became alive through
natural processes by chance alone, that all things now alive are descended from
a single (organism) or a very few initially living organisms, and that man
himself is the product of a process of chance development over millions of
years from nonhuman ancestors" (p. 9).
I have two questions I must
ask before we examine some cases of evolutionary fraud. What are the implications for moral and
spiritual values if the evolutionary hypothesis were true? How does one explain the popularity of the
theory of organic evolution? My friends,
the truthfulness of the theory of evolution is not a matter of
indifference. Its implications for every
phase of life are serious. I wan to list
five of those implications. Evolution
involves a complete repudiation of the scriptures as God's inspired word. It denies the creation account as revealed in
Genesis. It robs life of its
meaning. What ultimate meaning could
life have if we have descended from the animals? Evolution destroys the basis of all moral
values. I am aware of Antony Flew's
book, Evolutionary Ethics, but the title is self-contradictory. Evolution removes any ultimate responsibility
for our actions and hence cancels any possibility of judgement. You may destroy a dog for killing a child,
but you do not believe the dog is morally culpable. There are probably other implications of the
evolutionary theory, but these are adequate for our purposes today.
My other question is:
"How does one explain the popularity of the evolutionary
hypothesis?" Our educational system
must share much of the blame for evolution's popularity. Since virtually all references to God and to
Christianity have been legally removed from our public schools, evolution is
the number one explanation for the origin of man and of the universe. Children's television programs dealing with the
origin of men and of the animals all glorify the evolutionary theory. Sometimes that fact is obscured by a mass of
meaningless or deliberately deceptive phrases, but evolution permeates many
children's television programs. In
addition, many of the programs on the Discovery Channel and on Animal Planet
are saturated with evolution.
If you think the
evolutionists are not serious about the god of evolution, you need to do some
investigation on your own. There are
numerous books which explain what evolution is, how important is for many
science, philosophy and theology departments in our colleges and universities
and the penalties both students and teachers may have to pay when they object
to evolution. I think you would be
surprised; I hope you would be disappointed and disgusted. After all, your tax dollars pay for the
promulgation of the evolutionary theory and of many other anti-Christian
beliefs and practices.
There have been many
attempts on the part of evolutionists to commit fraudulent acts in support of
evolution. I understand the seriousness
of this charge, but there is absolutely no question about it. M. Bowden, and English scientist, in 1977
wrote a book with the title, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, Kent:
Soverign Publications). Bowden's book
successfully exposes some of the fraudulent idea being promoted by various
evolutionists. He shows that a Frenchman
by the name of Eugene Dubois concealed human skulls for thirty years. One of Dubois' supporters, Professor Ernst
Haeckel, faked some scientific illustrations.
Investigations have clearly shown that the Neanderthal men were true men
and not missing links between men and the animals. Their strange appearances resulted from
rickets and syphilis. They are not in an
evolutionary sense the progenitors of modern man.
Dr. Mary Leakey from the
famous family of anthropologists discovered footprints which she said were 3.6
million years old. But they were clearly human footprints. Dr. Bowden accuses the scientific
establishment of deliberately suppressing the publication of unwelcome evidence
on evolution. These are very serious
charges--as I mentioned a few minutes ago--but they are true beyond the shadow
of any doubt. Dr. Bowden says that fossil
hunters often have a subconscious desire to fit their discoveries to their
preconceptions, whether or not they are in line with current expert
opinion. Bowden makes mention of a
French author, Vayson de Predenne, who wrote the book, Archeological Frauds,
in 1925. De Predenne does not accuse the
scientists of being dishonest (p. 2). I
think de Predenne is being very generous in refusing to call some of the fossil
hunters deceptive and dishonest. But
when a scientist deliberately alters fossil remains or keeps them hidden from
the scientific community, I would call that dishonest.
Do you remember from your
high school or college days seeing a strange creature in your science textbook
with the name Piltdown Man? Did you know
that the Piltdown Man is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated in the
name of science? Dr. J. S. Weiner's
book, The Piltdown Forgery (London: Oxford University Press, 1955),
gives a wealth of material on the Piltdown fraud. At the time of the publication of his
book--1955--Dr. Weinger was a Reader in Physical Anthropology at Oxford
University. He was one of the scientists
involved in the exposure of the Piltdown forgery. His book makes fascinating reading.
Dr. Weiner writes: "On
December 18, 1912, Arthur Smith Woodward and Charles Dawson announced to a
great and expectant scientific audience the epoch-making discovery of a remote
ancestral form of a man--The Dawn Man or the Piltdown man" (p. 1). The discovery was hailed in the press and in
the scientific community as "a veritable confirmation of evolutionary
theory." The fossil was promptly
named Eanthropus dawsoni in honor of the discoverer (p. 5). Sir Arthur Keith, a distinguished
anthropologist and paleontologist, sang the praises of the Piltdown
discovery. "That we should discover
such a race, as Piltdown, sooner or later, has been an article of faith in the
anthropologist's creed" (p. 6). I
hope you took note of the expression, "an article of faith in the
anthropologist's creed." Does that
give you some insight into how badly evolutionists wanted to find some
confirmation of their faith in evolution?
Does it tell you why a scientist might fudge just a little on his search
for the missing link?
W. J. Sollas expressed the
excitement of the scientific community when he wrote: "In Eanthropus
dawsoni we seem to have realized a creature which has already attained
human intelligence but had not yet wholly lost its ancestral jaw and fighting
teeth" (p. 6). There is an enormous
amount of material in Dr. Weiner's book which allows us to see how men who are
determined to prove their evolutionary views will go to great lengths to alter
and then to hide what they have done from those who have a right to know. But to make a long and discouraging journey
short, let me say bluntly and very correctly: The Piltdown man was a deliberate
hoax. The only question which may never
be answered completely is who the culprits were. We know Charles Dawson, the discoverer of the
fossil, was involved. But who were his
co-conspirators? No reputable scientist
has implicated Smith Woodward, but many scientists believe that a Jesuit
priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, worked with Charles Dawson in deceiving the
public and a substantial number of scientists.
Teilhard de Chardin was a staunch evolutionist who was determined to
prove the theory of evolution at all costs.
The deception was discovered, but not all the deceivers were identified.
Dr. Weiner says that the
"creation of the composite ape-man, the Piltdown, was evidently an
elaborate affair; much thought and work had gone into the preparation of the
fraudulent jaw and in the provision of the other items of deception" (p.
53). He says "the objective
evidence for the deception was overwhelming…The Piltdown 'men' were forgeries,
the tools were falsifications, and the animal remains were planted" (p.
78). Can honorable men being involved in
such deliberate hoaxes--whether scientific or theological?
Dr. Weiner is a committed
evolutionist and thinks the so-called "missing links" of which
Charles Darwin spoke are no longer missing.
He concludes his book with this observation: "Though today we are
still far from an understanding of the many matters concerning men's origins,
we are in no doubt about the reality of the transformation which has brought
Man from a simian status to his sapiens form and capability" (p.
205). In other words, there is no doubt
about our development from monkeys or simians to our current status as human
beings. But is Dr. Weiner right? Are there no doubts about our evolutionary
development?
Everyone who believes the
Bible to be the word of God denies what Dr. Weiner affirmed. We know by divine revelation that God
almighty created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). We know evolution did not occur. It is absolutely unthinkable that all the
rich variety of our world could have evolved from one cell and that by
chance. I am in agreement with the title
of R. C. Sproul's book, Not a Chance.
We are not here by accident; we are here by the creative act of our
heavenly Father. You can place your
complete confidence in that truth.
Winford Claiborne
The
International Gospel Hour
Back to Transcripts Titles