Prologue quotes:
The United States has been described as a nation at risk because we are
failing to provide students with the most essential component of education
instruction that fosters the development of the ability to think.
-D.F. Halpern citing the National Commission on Excellence in Education.
The ability of U.S. students to think (rather than to memorize) has declined
accordingly.
-D.F.Halpern citing L.A. Steens Mathematics Ed.
The pattern is clear: the percentage of students achieving higher order skills is
declining.
-Baron & Sternberg, Ibid.
Fig. 1. The Satier or Man of the woods, illustration by George Edwards; South American
ape, photograph by Francois de Loys; Ardi, illustration by J. H. Matternes; Bonobo,
photograph by Frans de Waal.
To some researchers surprise, the female skeleton [that of the recently unveiled 4.4
million-year old Ardipithecus fossil known as Ardi] doesn't look much like a chimpanzee,
gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives. -Ann Gibbons
It is quite interesting that comments such as this one from the October
issue of Science no longer raise a question mark in the publics mind
despite what anyone can see with their own eyes.
But this was par for the course in 2009, the 200th birthday celebration of
Charles Darwin. It was the year in which Darwinian anthropology made its most
concerted effort ever to promote an ideology rather than simply report the
facts.
The great discovery, as it was called, was, in reality, a carefully-manufactured
mythological being. And the idea, of course, was the usual evolution-bynatural-selection in which all species come about from one another through
infinitesimal changes over time. The idea has always been plagued with factual
and mathematical problems, but has reached a pinnacle in Ardi.
Still, Ardi's debut came through a flood of media hype and full uncritical
support of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
This prompts the question, is it good science to so boldly promote an idea
which can never be tested in real time?
In this article, I will answer that question: Firstly, I will explain the humanization
of apes by science. Secondly, I will examine the coelacanth problem or why it
was necessary to downplay Ardis obvious similarity to the bonobo, and lastly, I
will show how the tenacity of Darwinian thinking has finally backed itself into a
factual and mathematical corner.
CALLOUT QUOTE
Bonobos are not on their way to becoming human any more than we are on our way
to becoming like them.
-primatologist, Frans de Waal, Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape
To the contrary, I suggest that Ardis image was entirely driven by a collective desire in the
scientific community to promote her as a transitional bipedal link, unique in time, rather than
simply as an ape.
Proponents of Ardi and sceptics alike have called the resulting creature, with its
odd mixture of ape and human traits, bizarre. Yet few question it. Why?
Unlike Ardi, de Waals bonobo photograph (Fig.2) is completely objective.
Though it resembles Ardi, no one calls it bizarre, as de Waal is not attempting
to pull more out of the bonobo than is actually there. De Waals photograph
shows beyond doubt that Ardi is not unique. So, rather than add human
features that make Ardi look bizarre, truly objective science would let her
remain an ape.
But here is the problem. If the Ardi scientists admit Ardis similarity to the
bonobo it would go straight against the very reason she was hyped in the first
place. This is because Ardi is not simply a fossil being objectively presented to
the public as one would expect from other scientific fields; she is an image
created to promote an ideology.
With evidence as unambiguous as Dr. de Waals bonobo photograph, no
scientist would attempt to convince the world that bonobos have fully-human
posture or that they can walk in a near-human fashion. Nor would they suggest
that such creatures will eventually evolve into humans as de Waal himself
points out: Bonobos are not on their way to becoming human any more than
we are on our way to becoming like them.
But attempting to convince is exactly what the Ardi team has done. Working to
convince rather than prove is quite common in evolutionary anthropology
where evidence can never be tested in real time but where the stakes of public
interest are high.
CALLOUT QUOTE
The only thing detracting from the tidy picture in the film's depiction is that
troublesome grasping toe.
-John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist
As to how long it took for such modern feet to become modern, the Ardi
teams bipedality expert, Owen Lovejoy, said that the Laetoli footprints are
what one would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long
period of time. -Owen Lovejoy, NOVA: In Search of Human Origins
So, these opinions bring up a reasonable question. How long is a very long
period of time?
According to footprint expert, Louise Robbins, of the original Laetoli team
(along with Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather
than apes), the Laetoli hominid-type had been walking erect for at least a
million years (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind). If we give Robbins and
Leakeys expertise any credence, then this certainly creates a problem as it
would mean that humans were here 4.8 million years ago, that is, 400,000
years before Ardi our supposed ancestor.
Even if we took Lovejoys comment to mean something more on the order of
only several hundred thousand years, then feet of a modern type were around
virtually at the same time as Ardi (4.2 to 4.4 million yrs ago). That wouldnt
even leave any natural-selection tweaking time between Ardi and Laetoli.
In other words, modern human feet and those like Ardi or bonobos have clearly
remained unchanged, side-by-side, for over four million years.
DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 1
Basic propaganda techniques in college textbooks
A lifelong reader of textbooks in every field exposes thousands of
examples of false statements of fact and other propaganda
techniques easily spotted in anthropology, biology, and paleontology
textbooks
By John Feliks
Fig. 1. The field is "anthropology."
Anthropology: the study of humanity.
Always
knows that they could not be. As far as science goes, the following techniques
are essential tools of the evolution trade because they are political. They have
to do with controlling peoples thinking. The stakes are very high:
. Faulty Cause & Effect (This technique suggests that because B follows A, A
must have caused B. Remember, just because two events or two sets of data
are related does not necessarily mean that one caused the other to happen.
This is the #1 flaw of evolutionary thinking. My first love is 30 years of
invertebrate paleontologywith no indoctrinationprior to taking on
evolutionary psychology. What I know of the fossil record, therefore, is pretty
clean. As all researchers know, the fossil record can logically be regarded a
record of appearances and disappearancesbut not a record of causes and
effects.
. Card stacking (Evidence conflicting with the agenda is kept from the target
audience, causing students, professors,
A belief that the
evidence for evolution
is overwhelming is
a modern academic
ruse directly related
to propaganda.
Students dont come
out of university able
to think for
themselves on the
matteras one might
expectbut only with
a set of instructions
on what to think.
. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (E.g., making people believe that they will not be
able to find work if they do not accept evolution ideology. Used by AAAS CEO
Alan Leshner.)
. Red herring (Presenting data that, while compelling, is not relevant to the
argument, and then claiming it validates the argument. Used constantly in
evolution textbooks.)
Fig. 6. Latest edition of Introduction to Physical Anthropology, i.e. Edition #14. The Lower portion
of the cover has been enlarged so that readers can clearly see the creatures chosen this time to
represent humanity. Propaganda techniques are only necessary in evolutionary sciences.
DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 2
Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 1st
half
.) Life arose from nonlife.
Stated as fact as though proven. However, no replications have ever been achieved despite
easy access to zillions of tons of chemicals, every force known, and every conceivable
environment.
3.) The origin of the eukaryotic cell was one of the pivotal events in
evolutionary history How did it originate? ... We think we can make
some reasonable guessesthe steps we suggest are just that:
guesses.
Say what? This is evolution buffoonery at its best: First, present an imagined story as though it
were fact. Then, admit that there is no consensus for the tenet even though it is regarded as
pivotal. Note also the improper use of the term, history. In normal thinking, speculations
are fiction. Fiction parading as scientific history should raise everyones eyebrows.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 587 (Fig. 3, next page).
4.) Body plans are basic structural designs [heading]. Most animals
have either radial or bilateral symmetry. The evolution of
bilaterally symmetrical animals [heading]. The common ancestors of
bilateral animals were probably simple, bilaterally symmetrical
animals composed of flattened masses of cells.
The first heading is a cunning trick of understatement diminishing the accomplishment by
inserting basic. Without the diversion it reads: Body plans are structural designs. The next
heading, presented as fact then followed by probably, is standard evolutionary doublespeak.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 562-3.
6.) Collectively, arthropods (which include the terrestrial insects and the marine
crustaceans) are the dominant animals on Earth, both in number of
species (some 1.5 million) and number of individuals (estimated at
some 1018 individuals, or a billion billion).
With this many species and individuals for easy study one would expect scientists to be pretty
confident on how insects originated. Heres their conclusion:
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 564 & 571.
Speciation, the
phenomenon of a new
species arising from an
ancestral species, is
well documented.
-Historical Geology, 7th Ed,
Wicander et al., 2012: 135.
Evolutionary Analysis
(1998-2013). The authors
(in the mode of Dawkins)
are so narrowly-focused
you can hear them
shouting, Evolution is a
fact, as they espouse
one fiction after another.
9.) Amphibians arose from ancestors they shared with the lungfishes.
the stubby, jointed fins of their ancestors evolved into walking
legs.
Standard unknown ancestors evolutionary fiction presented as fact.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 587.
13.) A dinosaur lineage gave rise to the birds. ...Existing data are
insufficient to identify the ancestors of birds with certainty.
Contradictions like this are standard to every evolutionary textbook . Doublespeak is an
easy-to-spot evolutionist trick where they are either deliberately attempting to weasel or
are innocently getting all mixed up in their own rhetoric. The trick is so common it can be
generalized: It begins with a false statement of fact and concludes with an admission that
there isnt really any evidence. To show that evolution textbooks alone get away with this,
imagine a mathematics textbook that said, 2+2=5. Well, we dont really have any proof
that 2+2=5. Or imagine a chemistry textbook that said, One hydroxide ion (OH) plus an
additional hydrogen atom (H) gives you a carbon atom (C). Well, we havent really
confirmed exactly what constitutes carbon, but many experts believe it involves the
hydroxide ion. As you can see, no real sciences could ever get away with such things. So,
how is it that evolution textbooks are not held to any standard of rigor?
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et
al., 2001: 591.
17.) Apart from having forelimbs modified into wings, bats differ
little from their immediate ancestors among the insectivores.
Indeed, with the exception of wings they closely resemble living
shrews.
Indeed, with the exception of wings an airplane closely resembles an automobile yet only
those committed to evolutionism would try to understate such a profound difference.
Immediate ancestors is a misnomer as there are no immediate ancestors of bats. If
evolutionists misusing understatement were tempered with basic engineering, physics, or
problem-solving, they would know not to think of profundities as if they were trivialities.
Conclusion
It is a serious problem for students education when textbooks purportedly
teaching science habitually use well-known propaganda techniques. Blatant
spreading of propaganda is ubiquitous in textbooks of the following fields:
anthropology, biology, paleontology.
These fields are diminished as sciences because students are being coerced
into a belief system and blocked from facts conflicting with that system. As
noted before, if an ideology is debunked entire fields have the potential of
collapsing. Normal sciences do not have this potential. Ideologically-committed
fields have no choice but to produce corrupted textbooks while simultaneously
blocking students from conflicting evidence. In normal sciences readers would
never tolerate textbook propaganda or the withholding of evidence. So, the
question has to be asked, why are evolutionary fields getting away with it?
When it comes to something as important as origins everyone has a right to
hear the evidence presented objectively.
DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 3
Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 2nd
half
A lifelong reader of textbooks in every field exposes thousands of
examples of false statements of fact and other propaganda
techniques easily spotted in anthropology, biology, and paleontology
textbooks
A clear line of
fossils? Fradulent
statements like this,
ubiquitous in evolutionbased college textbooks
(e.g., Figs. 1-7), will be
the downfall of science if
the community does not
distance itself from the
blatant use of fraud to
manipulate peoples
beliefs. Anthropology,
biology, and
paleontology have
become a conglomerate
easily provable to
employ fraud in the
captive-audience
science classroom.
Except that theyre
being paid, I would not
want to be the AAAS or
an attorney representing
mainstream science at
this point.
Fig. 1. Biology, 10th Ed., Raven et al, 2013. Like all similar
textbooks this series is packed with fraudulent statements
presented as fact.
This is an outright fraudulent statement that is not even close to being true as
the following quotes will attest. The same is the case for invertebrates with
literally zillions upon zillions upon zillions of fossils (you have to get out into the
field to know this) none of which show any clear line. In other words, the
statement proves that the authors of a leading biology textbook either have no
idea what theyre talking about when it comes to the fossil record or are
participants in fraud. Still, it is presented to trusting students as fact. One way
deceptions like this thrive is that each field in the
template-thinking conglomeratebiologypaleontology-anthropologykeeps duping the other
while individuals in each group have no grasp of the
issues from outside the conglomerate. Put the
experts on the stand and they wont repeat this
statement without qualification, as only an easilyduped judge such as Judge Jones could buy it (I have
read the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcriptit is packed
with trickery). No one who knows fossils, strata, or
capabilities of time would support the statement on
the stand. If they did it would enable a single on-theball opposing attorney to crack wide open the entire mindset in one fell swoop.
Fig. 3. The Earth Through Time, 10th Ed. (2013). Being historical geology (i.e. Darwinism
rather than objective geology), every edition, like all textbooks in the genre, is filled to the brim
with fictions taught as fact.
Frustrating is clearly not the right word. Historical Geology presents evolution
as a fact; yet in moments of lucidity, like this one, they come right out and
admit that there is nothing clear about the claims at all. They emphasize this
point a few pages further in:
22.) There is no clear consensus on the
evolutionary history of the hominid
lineage.
-Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 402.
Fig. 5. Life: The Science of Biology (Vol. II). Every edition
loaded with false statements of fact.
A few pages earlier the authors state as fact that there is a clear line of
fossils between apes and humans (p. 455). If there is a clear line of fossils
then why all the interpretation? Here the authors admit that they dont even
know if various hominid fossils are different species. This isnt exactly
unimportant when it comes to the idea of evolution. The quandary applies to
all fossils.
25.) The fossil database for hominids is frustratingly sparse.
26.) Paleoanthropologists make educated guesses about which
fossil species represent ancestors that live at the branch points of the
cladogram
-Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman and Herron, 1998: 538, 541-2.
27.) Early in its evolutionary history, the primate lineage split into two main
branches. Too few fossil primates have been discovered to reveal with certainty
their evolutionary relationships.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. (Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001): 595.
So the authors say, and in this form, it almost sounds scientific. However, a few
pages further the textbook proceeds to tell students exactly how humans
evolved as if it had never said otherwise:
29.) The oldest known hominid is Sahelanthropus. ...It was followed
by Orrorin...then...Ardipithecus. Recent discoveries indicate
Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus. ...The human lineage
began...with the evolution of Homo habilis. ...Homo erectus evolved
from Homo habilis. ...Homo sapiens evolved from H. erectus.
-Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 410.
The human evolution mythology presented as a fact. The authors even misuse
a trusted scientific word, indicate. Indicate expresses a certainty. There is
no more certainty that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus than that
bonobos evolved into Australopithecus.
30.) The footprints [the 3.6 million-year old Laetoli, Tanzania, human
footprints] confirm skeletal evidence that the species [Australopithecus
afarensis] had a fully erect posture.
-The Earth Through Time, 7th Ed., HL Levin, 2003: 552.
evidence they keep hearing about. So, in the final turn, what we are actually
talking about is faith. Faith is a part of all science and is fine except when
promoting a myth of origins as fact while withholding relevant evidence that
does not support the myth. That circumstance is not science.
DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 4
Evolutionists are not qualified to assess 'any'
evidence
"When evolution-motivated science dupes the whole planet for 35 years then you know it is time
for open classroom discussions."
Fig. 1. Museums and corrupted textbooks continue to mislead
anyone trusting that evolution is science. One way in which
the falsehood is enforced is by portraying ancient apes not only
with human feet but with human posture, human gait, human
gestures and expressions. Active in U.S. legislation is an
aggressive agenda to force these debunked ideas on captiveaudience school children as scientific fact. Images: Wikimedia
Commons. Are we really ready to allow an evidence-free state
religion? The U.S. has had none since 1776. Evolution is
plagued by one fiasco after another while textbooks make
thousands of easily-documented false statements of fact. If
Americans do not wake up there is the potential of losing the
right to openly question falsehood in general.
The Prezletice human molar has been re-identified as a bear ... and
the 'hominid' skull from Venta Micena as a horse.
-Clive Gamble, The Palaeolithic societies of Europe, 1999: 116
been through standard science training you will probably experience some resistance and even
imagine that A & B must go together somehow (scientists have tried every means even going
so far as to suggest that the big toe was tucked under the foot). Since evolutionists are only
looking for transitional ape-men that is what they are going to find and see. It should be
recalled that the Laetoli footprints were commandeered by Donald Johanson for
australopithecines in the 1970s as proof that they walked upright despite the fact that their
discoverer, Mary Leakey, was about to announce them as the oldest human footprints (D.
Ellis, The Leakey Family: Leaders in the Search for Human Origins , 1978: 100). The footprints
excavator, Tim White said that they were unmistakably like modern human footprints. When
evolution-motivated science dupes the whole planet for 35 years then you know it is time for
open classroom discussions.
Lovejoy: Theres no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. The Laetoli prints give
us direct record of how our ancestors walked almost 4 million years ago.... When we compare
the Laetoli footprint to that of a chimpanzee the difference is immediately obvious. The
chimpanzee...still [trick term of evolution rhetoric] has a free great toe and that great toe
extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. However, in the Laetoli prints,
the great toe is in line with the rest of the toes and thats the kind of fine tuning that you
would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time. Top. Showing
how the chimp foot is indistinguishable from Ardi (see Fig. 6). Significance? Bipedalism expert
Lovejoy claims that Ardi walked upright. Also, being misinformed by Johansons 35-year
takeover of Laetoli, Lovejoy assumed Laetoli was an australopithecine (see Figs. 1 & 2).
When I was growing up I had great teachers who paid attention to kids
including those who followed different drummersand not in the least
derogatory ways. In one class, around the 5th grade, I did not wish to
participate in the class assigned bulletin board project. It was some currently
popular topic; I dont remember what. But my teacher asked what I was
interested in working on instead and I said a board about dinosaurs and fossils.
To my surprise she said OK as I recall without hesitation and invited anyone
else in the class who wished to participate. There were only five or six of us
working on that rebel board but the point is that the teacher was not a
propagandist pushing a state agenda on kids like they are now. My teacher had
enough of a broad view to encourage students to explore where their
inspirations took them. I had several other teachers like that in elementary
school. And it is teachers like that who helped me retain at least a small degree
of faith in academia despite the fabricated propaganda pushed there today.
Fig. 6. An
example of how
the entire
community of
dogmaticallytrained
evolutionists
cannot see the
obviousthat A,
Ardi, and B,
bonobo, go
together. Instead,
they imagine that
A, Ardi, and C
humans as
represented here
by Michelangelos
David, go
together. (Ardi
image by Jay
Matternes,
Wikimedia
Commons; Bonobo photograph courtesy of primatologist and photographer, Frans de Waal;
Michelangelos David, Wikimedia Commons.) Ardi, a 4.4 million-year old fossil ape was hyped
by AAAS, the journal Science, and the general science community as proof of evolution. This is
the community trying to force legislation that these ideas be taught in science classrooms as
fact while conflicting evidence is blocked. The best proof that scientists such as this are not
qualified to assess any evidence is from Ann Gibbons overview of Ardi in the October 2009
issue of Science. She noted how surprised researchers were that Ardi doesnt look much like a
chimpanzee, gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives. That shows that these
researchers dont seem to know about apes at all and also that they seem to lack important
science skills such as being able to make reasonable comparisons. BTW, Ardis strangelyhuman posture, gesture and gaze are pure science propaganda. See Ardi: How to create a
science myth, PCN #3, January-February 2010).
DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 5
Mandatory U.S.-legislated indoctrination now in
place - 1st target, captive-audience children in K12 science classrooms
We live in a world where unfortunately the distinction between true
and false appears to become increasingly blurred by manipulation of
facts, by exploitation of uncritical minds, and by the pollution of the
language.
Arne Tiselius, Nobel biochemist
For many years, I have written about
the compromised state of modern
science including its use of wellknown propaganda techniques to
promote the ideology of Darwinism
(that complex life and intelligence
evolved from a batch of chemicals).
I have further warned about the loss
of rights that would occur if Americans did not hold responsible the community
which is pushing acceptance of a faith-based belief system full of fictions and
falsehoods as though it were factual science.
Here, I hope to show that a legislative document endangering the long-trusted
name of science to the effect of endorsing a State Religion has been introduced
and pushed through U.S. legislation by several powerful institutions.
Fig. 1. When trusting children in grade school are exploited by the education system and
placed in the hands of propagandists as part of the Common Core Science Standards their
formative window years for learning critical-thinking skills are lost forever. By the time these
children have gone through the systematic 12-year indoctrination they will lack all ability to
question Darwinism. This is accomplished through the techniques listed in Part 1 and Part 2.
When American science institutions through U.S. legislation force an ideological belief on
children while blocking classroom discussion of conflicting evidence you know you are dealing
with corrupted sciences (the three corrupted sciences are biology, paleontology, and
anthropology). Science does not behave this way and it discredits modern education.
Manipulation of this nature is an affront to the intellectual rights of American children and their
parents. Anyone who knows anything at all about State intellectual oppression in history should
recognize what is happening here in the U.S. at this very moment.
2.) An important aspect of the history of Earth is that geologic events and
conditions have affected the evolution of life.
-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 51.
[False statement of fact, Part 1, p1]
3.) The fossil record... documents the existence, diversity, extinction, and
change of many life forms throughout the history of life on Earth. Anatomical
similarities and differences between ... organisms living today ... and organisms in the fossil
the conditions that may result in new species and understand the role
of genetic variation in natural selection.
-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 79.
[False statement of fact, Card stacking, Managing the news, Part 1; Leading the witness, Part 2,
p1]
[Abuse of education: Captive students are graded on ability to profess and promote a
mythology as though its status as fact is secure, turning students into missionariesnot
scientists. Card stacking, Part 1. Abnormal science behavior: As in Part 3: p12: #33,
students are being trained to convince themselves and others of evolution.]
The following quotes are from the fine print of the NGS Standards, p96:
Evaluate the evidence behind currently accepted explanations. ...
The following quote from the mandate, that American childrenfor a grade
may only interpret evidence in one way should leave no doubt as to the
degraded state of U.S. science education. This one is for middle school
children:
Students can construct explanations based on evidence to support
fundamental understandings of natural selection and evolution.
...They are able to use fossil records ... to support their
understanding.
-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 50.