Creationist Wisdom #590: Evolution Is a Fraud

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin of Walla Walla, Washington. It’s titled Evolutionary frauds perpetuated on public. The newspaper has a comments section, but it looks like you need to sign in to see them.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Guillermo. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Wow! A new evolutionary human lineage based on nothing more than a partial jawbone, allegedly human! How many times are they going to trot out this evolutionary dead end before folks get fed up with being duped?

We assume he’s talking about this: Genetic analysis of 40,000-year-old jawbone reveals early modern humans interbred with Neandertals, which has been all over the news. Guillermo isn’t impressed. He says:

When it comes to religious zealotry, no one beats an evolutionary true believer. Evolutionists asserted that Piltdown man was an ancient ancestor of modern man.More than 400 doctoral degrees were awarded based on Piltdown man. None of those degrees was rescinded after the fraud was exposed. Talk about scientific integrity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve written about Piltdown Man here, and the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has an entry on all those non-existent doctoral degrees. Let’s read on:

Next, we have Nebraska man. The scientific evidence consisted of a single tooth. Despite this paucity of evidence, public school science textbooks carried artistic depictions of not only the male tooth donor, but his female mate. Alas, the tooth actually belonged to an extinct peccary.

Aaaargh!! What textbooks has Guillermo been looking at? TalkOrigins debunks that too. Guillermo continues:

Then came Orce man. Discovered in Spain, it was claimed to be the oldest fossilized human bone ever found in Europe. Plans were made for a huge celebration with evolutionary luminaries from around the world in attendance. Alas, the bone actually came from a young donkey.

We never heard of that one. According to TalkOrigins, it’s a story told by Duane Gish about a briefly misidentified fragment — see Creationist Arguments: Orce Man. Guillermo declares:

These are just a few examples of evolutionary frauds perpetuated on the public by evolutionists in the past.

Yes, it’s just one fraud after another. Here’s more:

Yet, when Dr. Ben Carson (arguably the greatest neurosurgeon ever) declared for the presidency, the U-B [presumably the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin] failed to mention he is a young-Earth creationist who disdains evolution.

Carson is a very likable man, but alas, he’s a flaming creationist. The newspaper was being kind to Carson by not mentioning that, but Guillermo thinks it’s part of a conspiracy to suppress the evidence that a genius opposes evolution. Skipping to the end:

Could it be that evolution is really nothing more than a humanist religion based on the philosophical assumption that God does not exist and is not endemic to real science? Think about it.

So there you are. Guillermo has exposed us. Evolution is a total fraud. Now you know.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #590: Evolution Is a Fraud

  1. When it comes to religious zealotry, no one beats an evolutionary true believer. Evolutionists asserted that Piltdown man was an ancient ancestor of modern man. … More than 400 doctoral degrees were awarded based on Piltdown man. None of those degrees was rescinded after the fraud was exposed. Talk about scientific integrity.

    But it was evolutionists who exposed the fraud, using the “unreliable” method of radiocarbon dating. And even before then, there had been suspicions, since the Piltdown “fossil” showed an apelike jaw with a modern cranium rather than (more or less) the other way around. (It turned out to be an orangutan’s jawbone attached to a human skull.)

    Yet, when Dr. Ben Carson (arguably the greatest neurosurgeon ever) declared for the presidency, the U-B [presumably the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin] failed to mention he is a young-Earth creationist who disdains evolution.

    I presume “Guillemo” thinks that because Dr. Carson is a creationist at least as much as because of his surgical achievements. However, the Union Bulletin was actually being kind to Dr. Carson by allowing him to run as a famous surgeon rather than as a flaming nutter.

    Could it be that evolution is really nothing more than a humanist religion based on the philosophical assumption that God does not exist and is not endemic to real science? Think about it.

    Think about this: when someone putting forward some idea or other leads off with “Could it be,” what follows is usually some crackpot conspiracy theory, whether the subject is evolution vs. creation or something else. And of course, “Guillermo” uses the word “endemic” incorrectly.

  2. Carson is “likable?” By what metric? He hasn’t actually killed anyone, that we know of?

    On the subject of the letter, at least we didn’t get the usual “Lucy is a fake” dance.

  3. Piltdown wasn’t exposed as a fraud because of radiocarbon dating.

  4. Then there was the Cardiff Giant (hoax) defended by evangelicals as being evidence of biblical giants!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant

  5. Dr. Ben Carson is arguably the greatest neurosurgeon ever? How is that even measured, and who, besides neurosurgeons, argues over such things?

    Honestly, he’s not even the greatest creationist neurosurgeon, as long as Egnor is around.

  6. @DavidK
    There is the fossil which was called Homo divulge testis, “Man the witness to the deluge”, by Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726. You can read about it in Wikipedia
    Andreas scheucheri

  7. Dave Luckett

    No. Piltdown Man was exposed as a deliberate fake after the first examination of the remains by a competent laboratory, using microscopy and chemical testing alone. The test was fluorine absorption, but I understand also that the teeth of the mandible showed file marks under a microscope. That left no doubt that this was a deliberate fraud; but the mandible was not identified as an orangutan’s until the 1980’s.

    Why it took so long to do this fairly simple examination is another story. Two world wars have something to do with it, and simple inertia will have to explain the rest. Who did the forgery is another unknown. For it to have been fraud rather than a practical joke, there would have had to be a profit made from it. Dawson never seems to have made one, except for some fame. The question is, who had access to the lower mandible of an orangutan, in 1908 in Sussex? It really can’t have been any of the ditch-diggers and quarry labourers said to have alerted Dawson to the finds. I suspect that the motive was simple mischief.

    Arkansas Man and Orce Man are also frauds, but in their cases we can clearly identify the fraudsters: they are the creationists who tell flaming lies about their wide acceptance by scientists. Neither of them was ever widely accepted, and both were rapidly dismissed as soon as detailed examination was made.

    The five hundred doctoral theses based on Piltdown man is also a lie, in this case a simple verbal falsehood. There were probably never any. The figure appears to have been plucked from the air by Gary Parker, a flaming creationist liar, for a pamphlet he wrote for “Creation Life Publishers” in 1980. It follows in the long creationist tradition of Making Stuff Up, a tradition also honoured by Guillermo.

  8. Some anthropologists believe that the skull represents an ancient form of man … many scientists believe he may have lived as long as a million years ago.

    … the shape of the skull resembles modern human forms.  The jaws and
    teeth are much like those of a chimpanzee.  This curious combination has led some authorities to doubt the existence of the Piltdown man.

    I found this in the 1947 World Book Encyclopedia. 

  9. All of Guillermo’s remarks are ridiculous, but I just want to say something about this one:

    “Wow! A new evolutionary human lineage based on nothing more than a partial jawbone, allegedly human!”

    Guillermo obviously does’t accept that the partial jawbone is human. He obviously doesn’t accept that scientists can determine such a thing. So, if Guillermo has a child and that child disappears and is murdered and dismembered and scavenged, and many years later someone comes across a partial jawbone somewhere, and forensic tests are done on that partial jawbone, and it is scientifically determined via DNA and form (and without dental records) that the partial jawbone is human and from his child, Guillermo would of course stick to his anti-science religious beliefs and claim that scientists cannot determine any such thing so it must not be from his child or any other human. Guillermo would surely and strongly tell the police and prosecutor to ignore any evidence based on the partial jawbone that “allegedly” came from his human child and he would tell them to look for evidence that is only in line with his religious beliefs, even if it meant that the murderer of his child goes free.

    Yeah, right.

  10. I have to note that this jawbone is not taken as evidence for the reality of human evolution.
    That has been already well established by multiple lines of evidence. All that’s being done is filling in the details. In this case, what about the Neanderthals? Bit by bit, more is being learned.
    Just as the Large Hadron Collider is not uncovering evidence of the reality of atoms. And the Hubble Telescope is not proving that the Earth is orbiting the Sun.

  11. I’ll read the post and the article later, but in the meantime I have a question. No, not the “What % of these writers are male?” that I keep asking. I know that answer is about 95%. This question is “How many of these 590 creationist “wisdom” letters just rave about creationism (or ID), without whining about evolution (or “Darwinism” or “evolutionism”)?” I’m guessing zero.

  12. Of course it’s zero. Creacrap only consists of two elements, as our dear SC has pointed out:
    1. Paley’s Watchmaker aka God of the Gaps;
    2. “Evolution is wrong.”

    As you can repeat 1 only a few times it’s 2 they have to focus on. This not only applies to their letters, it applies to theis blogs and books as well. One Dutch IDiot was honest (or dumb) enough to admit it when I pointed out that disproving Evolution Theory is not the same as provid IDiocy: “of course if Evolution Theory is wrong ID is correct!”

  13. “The newspaper has a comments section, but it looks like you need to sign in to see them.”
    I signed up, then submitted a comment, but they wanted one dollar to do this. That is one pathetic news website. Even worse is the article. I wanted to ask the science denier who is his favorite liar for Jesus.

  14. I think the statements made by for profit creationists may be framed the way they are for target audience purposes as much as any other factor.

    The tone is carefully framed as a defense against the apocalyptic onslaught of science/government/big business as part of an organized movement that wants to rid the world of religion and send your loved ones to the lake of fire.

    The pretext is usually laid out as a win by default, the subject being defending against will always have flaws that are represented as being irreconcilable (at least to (or as represent by) the writer).

    Now they are allowed to defend their beliefs/community/business interests aggressively. The pretext of defensive action is very important.

    It all adds up to an easily understood feelgood moment.

    Unfortunately the statements made during these defensive actions can quickly become more indicative of an attempt at a type of political/quasi legal argument rather than the reasonable critique one would expect.

    In the world of mysticism and politics, the line that we normally draw between our imagination, creative process and what is real, can simply be forgotten.

    Or abandoned as I suspect can be the case with the for profit crowd.

    Cheers

  15. Dave Luckett

    A dollar to comment, yet. I rather thought that there’d be a profit motive in publishing totally outrageous come-hither trolling. This rag appears to think that Journalistic Ethics is a small town in south-eastern England.