evolutionists are unsuccessful in finding scientific evidence
to support their theories, they are very successful at one
thing: propaganda. The most important element of this propaganda
is the practice of creating false designs known as "reconstructions."
Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a
picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on
a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed.
The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, and films are
Since fossils are usually
fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is
likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact,
the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists
based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely
to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an
eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when
he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so
sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations.
Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current
ideologies instead of the actual data."230
Since people are highly affected by visual information, these
reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which
is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really
existed in the past.
Reconstruction drawings reflect only evolutionists'
imaginations, not scientific discoveries.
At this point, we have to highlight one particular
point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal
the most general characteristics of the creature, since the
really distinctive morphological features of any animal are
soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore,
due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the
soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become
totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing
them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the
situation like this:
To attempt to restore
the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The
lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues
on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal
facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of
a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher.
These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have
very little if any scientific value and are likely only
to mislead the public Ö So put not your
trust in reconstructions.231
As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such
preposterous stories that they even ascribe different faces
to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed
drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus
(Zinjanthropus) are a famous example of such forgery.
The biased interpretation of fossils and outright
fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication
of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet
these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries
that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.
There is no concrete fossil evidence to support
the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the
media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their
hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures; nevertheless,
the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils
constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting
methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce"
the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown man, which may be the
biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example
of this method.
230 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging
Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.
231 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape,
McMillan, New York, 1931, p. 332. (emphasis added)