Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.

[Xavier]

If evolution is the alleged great and hidden truth about human origins unknown to divine revelation, to the holy Fathers and to Christ Our Lord and God Himself, who taught us the special creation of man by Almighty God, why is it so full of such manifest and deliberate frauds in just the last 100 years? "Piltdown man was extremely influential in shaping evolutionary thinking and early research on human evolutionary theory. For the four decades before it was exposed, Piltdown man was considered the 'missing link'. It was used as one of the key evidences against creation in the Scopes trial. It altered the education in the United States for a whole generation and found its way into major science textbooks and encyclopedias—and it was a hoax. There were over 250 publications on Piltdown man alone!1 The implications for evolutionary theory were tremendous. Entire evolutionary-developmental theories about hominid evolution were based on Piltdown and many of those were demolished when the fraud was exposed. 250 publications! It would be nothing short of historical revisionism to downplay its significance." https://creation.com/evolution-fraud

https://creation.com/the-piltdown-man-fraud

"Britain's Greatest Hoax. That was the title of the 'Timewatch' investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television.1 Viewers were presented with a great British 'whodunnit' that tried to identify those who made monkeys out of the scientists of the day.

The history of the discovery of the earliest Englishman (as Piltdown Man was so often called) is fairly common knowledge. A laborer was supposedly digging in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in Sussex in southern England when he found a piece of bone. He passed it to the local amateur archaeologist of the district, Charles Dawson, who verified its antiquity and pronounced that it was part of a skull which was possibly human. Dawson began to search for the rest of the skull and, in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means 'Dawson's Dawn Man'. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was 'proof' that apes had evolved into humans in England.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament."

[Xavier]

Example #2 of Evolutionary Deceptions: The Falsified drawings of Haeckel.

Guilty: "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [in early embryos] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases —in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent— simply copied the same figure over and over again." (Emphasis added.)

Gould added that Haeckel's drawings were known to be fraudulent by Haeckel's scientific peers from the outset. Given the prominence of Haeckel and his books, a corollary would be that Haeckel's scientific peers also knew from the outset that fraudulent drawings and claims were being used to sell Darwin's theory of evolution to the general public."

https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

[Mono no aware]

If evolution is the alleged great and hidden truth about human origins unknown to divine revelation, to the holy Fathers and to Christ Our Lord and God Himself, who taught us the special creation of man by Almighty God, why is it so full of such manifest and deliberate frauds in just the last 100 years?

Because human primates are highly-evolved creatures with large brains and complex thought patterns, having the capacity to be devious and deceptive.  Everything is full of manifest and deliberate frauds.  Skepticism is the only antidote.  But not just selective skepticism.  The important thing is to question even your own biases, because it's often the case that there's no deception like self-deception.  You who are skeptical of evolution do not apply the same skeptical rigor to your faith.

[GloriaPatri]

Pon, at this point I don't think there'e much point discussing this with Xavier. He's not here in good faith. He's not willing to discuss and learn. The only thing he's interested in is an echo chamber that confirms his preconceived notions of what is true. He's a classic example of confirmation bias at work.

[Mono no aware]

I'm actually willing to consider Xavier's claim that evolution is a conspiracy.  I'm not even averse to conspiracy theories myself; there are two I take pretty seriously: the assassination of JFK and 9/11.  I think the official explanations for those are suspicious, or, at the very least, wanting.  But in good faith, Xavier, look with honest skepticism at both Piltdown Man and your recent triumphalist claim about Y-Chromosomal DNA.

Granting, for the sake of discussion, what you consider true, consider the illogic:

1.  Evolution is a falsehood spread by a scientific community bent on promoting atheist doctrine.
2.  Piltdown Man was a hoax, devised to buttress the false theory of evolution.
3.  Evolutionists debunked Piltdown Man.

Also:

1.  Evolution is a falsehood spread by a scientific community bent on promoting atheist doctrine.
2.  Evolutionists release a study on Y-chromosomal DNA which you claim falsifies the theory of evolution.

[Vetus Ordo]

While Evolution is an established scientific theory today, we must recognize that it is also more than a theory. It has functioned as a core belief system for some people of agnostic or atheistic persuasion.

Given this fact, when it comes to any belief system and confirmation bias, hoaxes are pretty common down in history. It's just part of our nature. Some people will indeed go an extra mile in order to confirm their bias with a hoax or simply deceive others for some sort of profit. In and of itself, this has no direct bearing on the belief system itself or its reliability.

The medieval relic trade was full of obvious and cringe-worthy hoaxes, for instance, so much so that Calvin once famously remarked that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three." Other examples could be sought, like the infamous Donation of Constantine exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in the Renaissance or the dubious "Holy Fire" in Jerusalem that is kept running to attract pilgrims. Do these hoaxes in and of themselves disprove Christianity as a revelation from God? No. Christianity is dependent upon the veracity of Jesus of Nazareth, His life and testimony. And all of it hinges upon the historical reliability of the Scriptures. That's where it's at: the core argument. The sine qua non. An argument of historical testimony. The development of the religion itself and the Church down the ages, with its ups and downs, is an altogether different subject.

In likewise manner, Evolution cannot be disproved because there were some people who went out of their way to forge evidence for it. Evolution rests, above all, upon a series of scientifically established facts supporting universal common descent. If you wish to investigate this matter further, Xavier, here are enumerated and discussed 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent.

[Sempronius]

Why isnt't some one like Mary Schweitzer getting more support (and more fundings)? She discovered that there are bloodcells on dinosaur fossils. If scientists are such lovers of truth why aren't any one picking up on this?

[Maximilian]

He's a classic example of confirmation bias at work.

He is, but you're not. lol

[GloriaPatri]

He's a classic example of confirmation bias at work.

He is, but you're not. lol

Unlike Xavier, I read arguments for and against evolution. I just don't find those against evolution to be convincing. They get basic concepts and ideas wrong. Like stating that the Second Law of Thermodynamics "disproves" evolution, or that because it's called a "theory" that means that scientists aren't relitively certain that it's true.

In the former case, anti-evolutionists forget that the Second Law only applies to closed systems and the Earth's biosphere is not a closed system. In the latter case, they misunderstand the technical meaning of the word "theory" in the context of scientific jargon. Quite frankly, every attempt to refute evolution is based more on ignorance of empirical evidence rather than any evidence itself.

[GloriaPatri]

Why isnt't some one like Mary Schweitzer getting more support (and more fundings)? She discovered that there are bloodcells on dinosaur fossils. If scientists are such lovers of truth why aren't any one picking up on this?

They have, and they aren't convinced that those blood cells actually belonged to the dinosaurs themselves. I direct you to: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-dinosaur-blood-urges-caution-fossilised.html

[Sempronius]

Why isnt't some one like Mary Schweitzer getting more support (and more fundings)? She discovered that there are bloodcells on dinosaur fossils. If scientists are such lovers of truth why aren't any one picking up on this?

They have, and they aren't convinced that those blood cells actually belonged to the dinosaurs themselves. I direct you to: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-dinosaur-blood-urges-caution-fossilised.html

"They have", who are they? Its a modest article that "urges caution" and says that its "likely to be false". Most scientists in her field perceive her as a enemy and she has trouble finding donors and she has endured a lot of criticism.

[GloriaPatri]

Why isnt't some one like Mary Schweitzer getting more support (and more fundings)? She discovered that there are bloodcells on dinosaur fossils. If scientists are such lovers of truth why aren't any one picking up on this?

They have, and they aren't convinced that those blood cells actually belonged to the dinosaurs themselves. I direct you to: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-dinosaur-blood-urges-caution-fossilised.html

"They have", who are they? Its a modest article that "urges caution" and says that its "likely to be false". Most scientists in her field perceive her as a enemy and she has trouble finding donors and she has endured a lot of criticism.

There are plenty of articles like the one I linked. A simple Google search can do wonders.

[Vetus Ordo]

In the latter case, they misunderstand the technical meaning of the word "theory" in the context of scientific jargon.

I don't know of anyone who seriously proposes this as an argument against Evolution.

[GloriaPatri]

In the latter case, they misunderstand the technical meaning of the word "theory" in the context of scientific jargon.

I don't know of anyone who seriously proposes this as an argument against Evolution.

You'd be surprised. It's usually not the professional anti-evolutionists, I'll grant you that. But plenty of people on the internet don't know what the word means when used by scientists.

[Vetus Ordo]

In the latter case, they misunderstand the technical meaning of the word "theory" in the context of scientific jargon.

I don't know of anyone who seriously proposes this as an argument against Evolution.

You'd be surprised. It's usually not the professional anti-evolutionists, I'll grant you that. But plenty of people on the internet don't know what the word means when used by scientists.

Of course.

But "people on the internet" can't be considered a barometer to assess anything. You'll find anything on the internet. Literally, anything.