ARDI: HOW TO CREATE A SCIENCE MYTH AND HOW TO DEBUNK EVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA

Citation preview

ARDI: HOW TO CREATE A SCIENCE MYTH AND HOW TO DEBUNK EVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA. BY JOHN FELIKS About the author John Feliks is founder of the Pleistocene Coalition and editor-in-chief and layout editor of Pleistocene Coalition News. He has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly 20 years. His father, a retired tool and die designer, taught Feliks the basic techniques of drafting at a very early age including straight edge, T-square, triangle and compass, while Feliks’ mother, along with many open-minded friends and teachers, helped inspire a lifelong interest in archaeology and especially anomalies. Together, along with a healthy skepticism of the evolutionary system, these things encouraged recognizing the precision of drafting techniques in ancient artifacts as opposed to only simple scrapes and notches. Feliks is also a composer and taught computer music including MIDI, digital audio editing, and music notation for 11 years in a college music lab.

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. Steen’s 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 public’s 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 efort 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 ininitesimal 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 lood 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 Ardi’s obvious similarity to the bonobo, and lastly, I

will show how the tenacity of Darwinian thinking has inally backed itself into a factual and mathematical corner.

The humanization of apes Ape humanization is much easier to accomplish with an artistic rendition, such as that of Ardi or the Satier than with a photograph, as the above four strikingly similar images attest (Fig.1). Yet, Swiss geologist Dr Francois de Loys’ South American ape (or spider monkey as some assert) represented by an actual photograph is the only one of these images of which its detractors have gone so far as to call an ape-man hoax and declare Dr. de Loys a fraud. Ironically, the title of de Loys’ 1929 report sounds uncannily similar to Ardi titles published in Science and elsewhere in 2009: “A gap illed in the pedigree of man?... A new and strangely human species of the anthropoid apes.” Claims such as these are regularly produced in anthropology and are usually later backed-down from, retracted, or disproved. Of the four images in Figs. 1 & 2, the only one which is completely free from the possibility of being false is the photograph of the modern-day bonobo taken by esteemed primatologist, Frans de Waal (image cropped with permission). Even though artistic renditions such as Ardi are only interpretations, often the idea of an interpretation falls by the wayside due to faith in a paradigm; and soon an impressionable audience is given a full-leshed Ardi complete with human features and presented as “scientiic fact.” The way Ardi was presented gave the impression that human features just fell into place based on the physical evidence. Fig. 2. Ardi illustration, J. H. Matternes; Bonobo photograph, Frans de Waal.

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 Ardi’s image was entirely driven by a collective desire in the scientiic 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 Waal’s 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 Waal’s 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 Ardi’s similarity to the bonobo it would go straight against the very reason she was hyped in the irst place. This is because Ardi is not simply a fossil being objectively presented to the public as one would expect from other scientiic ields; she is an “image” created to promote an ideology. With evidence as unambiguous as Dr. de Waal’s 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.

Avoid the bonobo as if it were a coelacanth “Whereas the chief anthropologist on the Ardi team goes by the bonobo-like name of Owen Lovejoy, he focuses all of this attention on the chimpanzee...Since chimps are violent and Ardi probably wasn't, he argues that we have a totally unique creature on our hands.” -Frans de Waal, primatologist

As the coelacanth taught us early in the 20th century, it is diicult to use a fossil as a transitional evolutionary link if a living example happens to one day show up. So, in the case of Ardi now is apparently just not the time to look at

the bonobo. It is an example of how science, when it gets involved in promoting ideologies instead of discoveries tends to downplay certain kinds of evidence or even block it from being published (behaviours in science which, incidentally, inspired the formation of the Pleistocene Coalition). To admit the obvious similarity between Ardi and the bonobo would undermine Ardi’s use as a transitional link and show her to simply be an ape hardly changed in 4.4 million years. In fact, the only diferences between Ardi and the bonobo which can be seen in Fig.2 are added human traits, none of which are deducible from the fossils.

Selling ape-man bipedality at all costs “The papers describing Ardipithecus do not come to the conclusion that Ardi had anything like a human pattern of bipedality. Nor, I would add, do the data support that conclusion. Yet here [in the Discovery Channel’s Discovering Ardi program], they spent most of the whole hour leading up to the conclusion that Ardi was an obligate biped... The only thing detracting from the tidy picture in the ilm's depiction is that troublesome grasping toe.” -John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist

So, has an accurate image of Ardipithecus been presented to the public? Deinitely not. But this is not unusual in evolutionary anthropology. Although the whole idea of bipedal apes has reached its apex with Ardi, it received its biggest boost during the late Seventies when scientists commandeered for Australopithecus, another early ape (e.g., “Lucy”), the essentially modern-type Laetoli footprints (3.6—3.8 million years old) despite no direct association between them. Circumstantial claims such as this would never be accepted in sciences where rigor is the rule. Yet the scientiic community has unabashedly perpetuated the myth that australopithecines had modern feet ever since. It simply added ‘australopithecine bipedality’ to a bank of “facts” which have, similar to many others in the Darwinian system, never been proven as facts to begin with. The problem with doing science this way is that future researchers tend to build on prior-established facts. Building on facts that are not facts at all is not the best way to go.

CALLOUT QUOTE “The only thing detracting from the tidy picture in the ilm's depiction is that troublesome grasping toe.” -John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist

The ‘ape-foot ’ to ‘human-foot’ timeline The igure below (Fig.3) shows the time-frame defaulted to by the Ardi team during which ape feet are supposed to have changed into human feet by the slow process of natural selection. When species overlap in time, it is diicult to imagine one as an ancestor of the other. The real problem is made clear when scientiic opinions on the nature of feet and footprints are compared with the numbers. Back when Ardi team co-leader, Tim White, was promoting Australopithecus as a bipedal human ancestor, he had this to say about the Laetoli footprints: “Make no mistake about it. They are like modern human footprints” -Tim White, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind.

As to how long it took for such ‘modern feet’ to become modern, the Ardi team’s 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 Leakey’s 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 Lovejoy’s 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 wouldn’t 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 ield 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 ield is "anthropology." Anthropology: the study of humanity.

“Evidence of the conlation of rhetoric and propaganda, under the general notion of persuasion, has become increasingly obvious, especially in the classroom.” -Bennett and O'Rourke, “A Prolegomenon to the Future Study of Rhetoric and Propaganda.” Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays (Jowett and O'Donnell, Eds., 2006)

Question: How does one make an ideology claimed as fact appear overwhelmingly true to students never taught how to think critically?

You should have no doubt whatsoever that you've been intellectually compromised— including with assessment skills deleted—if you can look at the title and cover of this required college textbook and not ind something wrong with the picture. Each edition of Introduction to Physical Anthropology (1-14), features a similar contradiction of text and image that would be unacceptable in any true science. Not one cover includes the face of a human being. Anthropology in all of its forms (except linguistic—the most reputable) has a long history of manipulating or outright deceiving the public. It is used as a powerful

Answer: 1.) Turn science textbooks into propaganda; 2.) Intimidate students who question the propaganda; 3.) Withhold conlicting evidence. This series is intended to help readers discern between normal science and propaganda used only in evolution-based materials to control beliefs about human origins (e.g., Figs. 1 & 2).

Always

tool to manipulate both cultural and personal identity.

remember that real sciences— unlike evolutionary sciences—do not need to employ propaganda or coercion as they simply go wherever the evidence leads. However, evolutionary ields are ideologically pre-committed and depend entirely upon propaganda and withholding conlicting evidence in order to persuade.

Fig. 2. The Introduction to Physical Anthropology series—which is purportedly about humanity—has never employed a picture of an actual human being on any of its 14 covers but rather images of apes or creatures rhetorically referred to as “hominids.” The technique has the efect of causing students to associate the term “Anthropology” with apes. Manipulation at this level presented as fact is an afront to education just as a hypothetical book called, 2+2=5: The History of Mathematics, would be to anyone interested in mathematics; the diference is that mathematicians are not so easily duped.

A few of the techniques employed ubiquitously in evolution textbooks include the following list. It is only a sampling so as to leave space for a few visual cover examples. While reading the list ask yourself if thousands of such examples could be given for textbooks in sciences such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, mathematics, psychology. Most likely the reader already

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 people’s thinking. The stakes are very high:

. Faulty Cause & Efect (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 law of evolutionary thinking. My irst love is 30 years of invertebrate paleontology—with no indoctrination—prior 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 disappearances—but not a record of causes and efects.

. Card stacking (Evidence conlicting 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 don’t come out of university able to think for themselves on the matter—as one might expect—but only with a set of instructions on what to think.

and the public in general to naively believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.)

. Association (This is one of the most common techniques of propaganda. As Figs. 1, 3, 5 & 6 show very clearly the intention is to force association between apes, etc., and the word “Anthropology.” Everyone knows that anthropology is the study of humanity—not the study of apes. But the intention is to make the two appear synonymous. Try this test of conidence in one’s own critical thinking: Look at the picture in Fig. 1 and say to one’s self the word, “humanity.” If you get a sense that something’s not quite right then you are on your way out of a propaganda-induced delusion. To force such bufoonery on students in a captive audience setting is an afront to

education. It has spread throughout academia with few students or professors capable of spotting it [see also, Ardi: How to Create a Science Myth]. Teaching fantasy science as fact without presenting conlicting evidence— especially when primary tenets such as cognitive evolution have already been falsiied —should have no place in the classroom.) Fig. 3. “Association” and “Managing the news” with subliminal trickery: In anthropology, fossil apes are always rendered to appear highlyintelligent and thoughtful and associated with the word “Anthropology.” See the PCN article, “Ardi: How to Create a Science Myth,” Pleistocene Coalition News, JanFeb. 2010.

. Disinformation (The creation or deletion of information from public records in the purpose of making a false record of an event. The author has experienced this directly.)

. Managing the news (A single idea is forced on the target audience constantly and is repeated over and over again. Fig. 3 and Fig. 5.)

. Deception or false statements of fact (Ubiquitous in evolution textbooks; Fig. 4)

. Half-truth (Deceptive statement which may include some element of truth; a ubiquitous mainstay of evolutionary rhetoric. Fig. 4) Fig. 4. Historical Geology (2008-2012), a required

textbook, makes unapologetic use of rhetorical tricks and so many false statements in every edition that it could be used as a teaching guide for propaganda technique. The book is beautifully-presented with many truthful facts; but that is part of how propaganda works.

. Bandwagon (Attempt to persuade the target audience to accept an agenda because “everyone else is a believer.” Typical NCSE trick.)

. Milieu control (Controlling social environment and ideas through social pressure; a mainstay evolutionary tactic.)

. Obfuscation (Intentional vagueness, confusion; a mainstay evolutionary trick.)

. Demonizing the enemy and Name-calling (Making those with conlicting views appear subhuman. E.g., Anyone who “doesn’t believe” in evolution is “stupid,” “ignorant,” or “insane.” -Richard Dawkins.) I’m champing at the bit!

Fig. 5. One of the ancient beings on this propaganda textbook cover created the 400,000-year old modernlevel Bilzingsleben engravings. Anthropology students, however, could never distinguish such a person here because in anthropology ape fossils (1st two rows) are always depicted as beings more intelligent than apes, and early human fossils as beings less intelligent than modern humans. This is to force the idea of evolving intelligence even though there is absolutely no evidence for such in either the archaeological or paleontological records.

. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (E.g., making people believe that they will not be able to ind work if they do not accept evolution ideology. Used by AAAS CEO Alan Leshner.)

. Obtain disapproaval (Adherents try to make evolution synonymous with science referring to those challenging evolution as “attacking science.”)

. Thought-terminating clich�s (Blocking discussion through use of overly simplistic phrases or arguments. E.g., “attacks on science,” as typiied by NCSE CEO, Eugenie C. Scott. As I’ve said before, when a science treats new

evidence as an attack it is in trouble as a science.)

. 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.)

. Unstated assumption (A technique used when the idea the propagandist wants to plant would seem less credible if stated clearly. The concept is instead simply assumed or implied, like the Darwinian idea that intelligence evolves. This idea has been falsiied. By blocking falsiications from the public the evolution community is showing its willingness to use censorship for the sake of perpetuating a deception. Evolutionary assumptions are not science but part of a belief system, so its proponents block any evidence conlicting with the belief.)

.

Glittering generalities (Used by evolutionist, Dr. Kenneth Miller, telling children that acceptance of evolution is part of a “really good education” and that children should only be taught the “best” theories in science. Buffoonery like this and all similar attempting to force a single ideology on children shows that the propagandists have no idea whatsoever as to how critical thinking actually works.)

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.

. Transfer (Attempt is made to transfer the prestige of a positive symbol to a person or an idea. One attempt at employing this trick by the science community was the 2009 campaign to compare Charles Darwin with Abraham Lincoln because they were each born on the same day! Contrived comparisons were made such as suggesting that each was a “defender of freedom”—Lincoln, freedom for the slaves, and Darwin, freedom for the mind. Suggestions went so far as to try and get Lincoln’s and Darwin’s birthdays to be celebrated in tandem as an international holiday. The attempt shows the complete depravity of the Darwin-absorbed hive mind. However, this is the kind of thing that one expects in a groupthink environment where adherents signiicantly overrate their own abilities and underrate those of their opponents. Such ideas are only devised by those approaching evolution from the perspective of fanaticism. One can’t blame them alone, as they too were programmed in school and through PBS television specials and lost critical thinking skills just as modern students are at risk for unless they take charge of their own minds early on.) Evolutionary propaganda is a misuse of human language and psychology. The only way I can think of to make reform possible from the inside where the propaganda has free reign—grade school through college and university textbooks and instruction—is to make critical thinking a required class for anyone going into sciences which associate themselves with a pre-committed ideological belief instead of the normal objectivity present in other sciences. Sciences which currently claim evolution as their core—biology, paleontology, anthropology—are in trouble. It will take a major increase in people ready to think for themselves but then the paradigm will lip.

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.

“We think that the processes leading to life began nearly 4 billion years ago.” Note the phrase, “We think.” So, is #1 above a fact or not? Here is how normal science would respond: If it is not a fact then don’t state it as one. -Life: The Science of Biology, 5th Ed. Vol. I: The Cell and Heredity; Purves et al 1998:2 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Life: The Science of Biology (2001-2010). Every edition loaded with false statements of fact.

2.) “The appearance of eukaryotic cells ... marks a milestone in evolution. But where did these cells come from?” Logical fallacy. If you don’t know where cells came from then how can you say they evolved? Paraphrase exposes the fallacy: “We know that eukaryotic cells evolved even though we have no evidence.” -Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 178 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Historical Geology (2008-2012), a required textbook, makes unapologetic use of rhetorical tricks and so many false statements in every edition that it could be used as a teaching guide for propaganda technique. The book is beautifully-presented with many truthful facts; but that is part of how propaganda works.

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 guesses…the steps we suggest are just that: guesses.” Say what? This is evolution bufoonery 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 “iction.” Fiction parading as scientiic history should raise everyone’s 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 lattened masses of cells.” The irst 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.

5.) “Which of the features of protostomes [animals with bilateral symmetry] do

you think are major evolutionary novelties?” In propaganda technique, this is known as a “leading question,” one that no matter how it is answered, will incriminate the one who answers—in legal terms known as “Leading the witness.” Captive students should not be forced to profess a challenged theory as though its status as fact is secure. -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 576.

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 conident on how insects originated. Here’s their conclusion:

“Insects may have originated from a centipede-like ancestor as far back as the Devonian period.” As always, not too impressive, employing the typical trick of appealing to some unknown creature. For all the unknown creatures needed, everyone should see that evolution depends more on faith than science. Up to this point in the timeline, we have no conidence whatsoever in any stage of evolution; if not for insects, how can they later explain “more complex” developments?

-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 564 & 571.

7.) “The evolution of the ability to ly allowed the insects to escape from potential predators and to traverse boundaries that might otherwise have been insurmountable.” Something as complex as light—both in the engineering requirements and the physics—must have taken immeasurably long to “evolve.” However, the fossil Rhyniognatha hirsti (early Devonian, 400 million years old) currently holds the distinction of being not only the earliest insect but also the earliest known animal to ly. Insect light is now described as developing with the “suddenness” of the Cambrian Explosion—already a serious problem for scientists. So, R hirsti is another setback for an ideology with advocates like Richard Dawkins calling those who question it, “stupid,” “pig-ignorant,” or “insane.” With this fossil alone, we have two pivotal so-called “evolutionary” developments—insects invading the land to become the most prominent animals plus the irst animal with a likely ability to ly—both absolutely profound and occurring in a heartbeat. Science can only describe the organism; the organism itself says absolutely nothing about evolution.

“Speciation, the phenomenon of a new species arising from an ancestral species, is well documented.” -Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 135.

This is a trick statement made possible by a wild card use of the term “species.” The term “phenomenon,” is also improperly used as it deceptively implies established fact. The only correct term would be “idea.” Those making the statement would easily lose in a court of law. The wild card lets scientists claim “diferent species” for animals which can actually interbreed.

-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 574.

The ields lack rigor: 1.) Biology, 6th Ed. 2002. Raven et al. Absolutely loaded with ictions stated as fact. 2.)

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 iction after another.

Fig. 3. Life: The Science of Biology (Vol. II). Every edition loaded with false statements of fact.

8.) “The Devonian predecessors of amphibians were probably able to crawl from one pond or stream to another.” The sentence is a double-fallacy: a.) Assume that amphibians had less able predecessors, b.) State that the predecessors were “probably able to crawl.” The irst half creates ictional characters and the second half proceeds to describe their abilities. Everyone can recognize simple iction. This imaginative iction is followed by an outright false statement of fact , namely: “They

gradually evolved to be able to live on swampy land and, eventually, on dry land.” The whole paragraph is evolutionary iction presented as fact. -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587.

9.) “Amphibians arose from ancestors they shared with the lungishes. …the stubby, jointed ins of their ancestors evolved into walking legs.” Standard unknown ancestors evolutionary iction presented as fact. -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587.

10.) “The design of those legs remained largely unchanged throughout the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates.” An example of fact blended seamlessly into iction. It shows how evolutionists weasel around every innovation factually preserved in the fossil record. They do similarly on the design of all externally profound features such as legs or wings. The fact is that these “designs,” as they call them, employ several types of levers in very complex conigurations from insects and other arthropods to birds and mammals (some beetles have such a profound array of levers and related structures in legs, wings, and wing covers as to be unmatched for eiciency or economy by any human construction whatsoever). In many cases, the very same levers are built by completely diferent means and with diferent construction materials. All of these lever designs have remained unchanged—a fact which does not support any evolutionary theory. There’s a folk saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t ix it.” And contrary to what the evolution community would have naive people believe, the actual fossil record consists of nothing but designs that “ain’t broke.” Here is an admission of this point from the very same textbook: “Sometimes

humans refer to species as ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced.’ These and similar terms, such as ‘lower’ and ‘higher,’ are best avoided because they imply that some organisms function better than others.” This is admitting that there are no ineicient species. Scientists have 3.5 billion years and miles of vertical strata with literally zillions upon zillions of fossils in situ to work with. Yet after 150 years of Darwinism they are still not able to convince the critical thinker—especially one familiar with the fossil record. This is why fanatics insist on attempting to control legislation to assure unchallengeable captive audience classroom indoctrination denying students critical thinking experience early on and blocking them from any discussion of conlicting evidence. The goal? Make it so students literally can’t think for themselves but can only follow a template. -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 587 & page 7.

11.) “Considerable uncertainty surrounds the next lineage split … turtles.” Standard propaganda trick making it sound as though the claims for other splits are not equally characterized by uncertainty. The truth is, “all” evolutionary claims are uncertain, yet the community habitually states them as facts. If ields cannot abide by the rigors of science they should not be called sciences. -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001: 589.

12.) “In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin amassed evidence that all species derive from a single common ancestor by transformation and speciation.” Complete bufoonery stated as fact. The textbook goes on to say that evolutionary biologists can’t even deine the term “species.” In other words, after 150 years they don’t have a deinition for the central premise. Despite a glazed-over science community, Darwin did not provide any evidence that all species derive from a single common ancestor. The evidence Darwin did provide is far less profound than the diferences in dog breeds which would never be called diferent species. The simple truth is that evolutionists arbitrarily banter about the term ‘species’ as though it is a wild card. They freely change its meaning whenever they are in a bind or need a diferent deinition. Does anyone really believe that there are thousands of African cichlid species? Does anyone really believe that Darwin’s inches are diferent species? One can easily fall prey to these ideas until one realizes that the “species” can interbreed. At this point, scientists quickly switch to a diferent deinition of species, e.g., groups of animals that can interbreed but are isolated, occupy diferent niches, or which have diferent behavioral characteristics. The trick can get them out of any corner they ind themselves in. -Concepts of Genetics, 8th Ed, Klug, Cummings, and Spencer 2006: 641 & 647 (Fig. 4).

13.) “A dinosaur lineage gave rise to the birds. ...Existing data are insuicient 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 isn’t really any evidence. To show that evolution textbooks alone get away with this, imagine a mathematics textbook that said, “2+2=5. Well, we don’t 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 haven’t really conirmed 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.

14.) “We know mammals evolved from mammal-like reptiles called cynodonts during the Late Triassic.” We know? By now you should realize that no such claims are facts. -Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 381.

15.) “Insectivores have probably not changed much since they appeared during the Late Cretaceous.” Standard evolutionary doublespeak. “Probably” is a disingenuous diversionary tactic used because pointing out directly that any creatures have “not changed much” does not support evolutionary theory. It’s like saying, “The horseshoe crab, coelacanth, and platypus have ‘probably’ not changed much,” when we already know that they are living fossils. (Note: Conidently ignore current evolutionary tricks to again play with the concept of “species” in regards to the coelacanth.) The sentence is followed by more trickery trying to make a fanciful story sound like evidence-based science (#16):

16.) “In fact, an insectoviore-like creature very likely lies at the base of the great diversiication of placental mammals.” This is the standard play-it-safe trick of not ofering a speciic fossil as a transitional form but appealing to some unknown common ancestor. -Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 374.

17.) “Apart from having forelimbs modiied into wings, bats difer 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 diference. “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.

Historical Geology, 7th Ed, Wicander et al., 2012: 374.

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 ields: anthropology, biology, paleontology. These ields are diminished as sciences because students are being coerced into a belief system and blocked from facts conlicting with that system. As noted before, if an ideology is debunked entire ields have the potential of collapsing. Normal sciences do not have this potential. Ideologically-committed ields have no choice but to produce corrupted textbooks while simultaneously blocking students from conlicting 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 ields 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 ield 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 now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals... reptiles and mammals... dinosaurs and birds... apes and humans." -Biology, 6th Edition, Raven et al, 2002: 455.

“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 people’s beliefs. Anthropology, biology, and paleontology have become a conglomerate easily provable to employ fraud in the captive-audience science classroom. Except that they’re being paid, I would not want to be the AAAS or

When I was a boy in 1960s Michigan there were several things I wanted to be when I grew up. They included, paleontologist (see Tales of a Fossil Collector in this issue); marine biologist; astronaut; artist/musician; and detective or attorney. As far as the desire to be an attorney goes, it was inspired by the television program, Perry Mason— excellent television giving a sense of critical thinking until the show ended in 1966. But right on the heels of Perry Mason (and no less, the thought-provoking series, The Outer Limits), just a few months later began the baby-boomer life-changing phenomenon of Star Trek. One typically hears how Star Trek inluenced modern technology. That’s obvious. However, I would like to say that one of Star Trek’s biggest inluences on me as a 12-year old was Science Oicer Spock’s constant referral to logical thinking. Of course, I also admired Captain Kirk et al. This whole notion of logical or

an attorney representing mainstream science at this point.

critical thinking led me to the school library and a book on logic. That is when (unrelated to any classes) I irst learned about logical fallacies, overgeneralization, circular reasoning, black & white thinking, etc., all of which are generally considered bad science. It was many years later I discovered that these are traits of evolutionary fanaticism. The logic book also brought me to Plato and eventually reading many of his dialogues, learning perspective, Theory of Forms, and a general sense of putting actual efort into thinking.

Fig. 1. Biology, 10th Ed., Raven et al, 2013. Like all similar textbooks this series is packed with fraudulent statements presented as fact.

So, that is where my idealized expectations of science came from. However, as most readers already know, after experiencing censorship of empirical evidence starting with a paper called The Impact of Fossils on the Development of Visual Representation (again, see Tales of a Fossil Collector), and later, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, awareness of publication control by evolution fanatics began to emerge; and trust in peer review as ‘science’ appropriately dissolved to nothing. Regarding the censorship of Fossils, archaeologist Paul Bahn wrote me that Current Anthropology published “a lot of rubbish” while blocking good papers. Anthropologist Randy White expressed identical sentiment regarding the censorship as did many other leading authorities. Censorship makes

deception possible by removing the means to assess evidence objectively. False statements then become unrecognizable even to textbook writers; and very few will even bother investigating evidence for themselves. This is how textbooks enable fanatics to control the public mind. They are going to need dozens of attorneys defending them once the scope of this deception cracks open. Fig. 2. The Earth Through Time, 7th Ed. (2003) is “historical” geology, i.e. not objective geology but that absorbed by evolutionism. Every edition is packed with false statements or speculations rendered as fact. Like Historical Geology, this book is beautifully produced. It is only its evolutionism that makes it a work of propaganda.

18.) “Most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found.” -Biology, 6th Ed. Raven et al. 2002: 455.

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 ield 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 they’re 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 ield in the template-thinking conglomerate—biologypaleontology-anthropology—keeps 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 won’t repeat this statement without qualiication, as only an easilyduped judge such as Judge Jones could buy it (I have read the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript—it 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 illed to the brim with ictions taught as fact.

19.) “The fossil record provides a clear record of the major evolutionary transitions that have occurred through time.” -Biology, 6th Ed. Raven et al. 2002: 441

Fig. 4. Evolutionary Analysis, upcoming 5th Edition, Freeman et al, 2013. Don’t expect any surprises. Prediction: the reader should ind as much iction fanatically stated as fact as in prior editions using rhetorical intimidation a.k.a. Richard Dawkins style.

20.) “A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals… reptiles and mammals… dinosaurs and birds… apes and humans.” –Biology, 6th Edition, Raven et al, 2002: 455. Despite the boldness with which the Biology textbook makes the above false statement it regularly contradicts itself as do all such textbooks. To assess the value of the statement consider the following concessions from another textbook. It should be obvious that there is general knowledge in biology, paleontology, and anthropology that they are making false claims. Admission that what they are saying is not true is at the heart of textbook deception: 21.) “Although some may ind it frustrating, human evolution is just like that of other groups in that we have followed an uncertain evolutionary path.” -Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 398.

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.

23.) “Humans arose from australopithecine ancestors. Many experts believe that the recently discovered Australopithecus garhi or a similar species gave rise to the genus Homo.” -Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. (Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al., 2001): 597.

Evolutionary doublespeak. Here the iction is irst presented as fact followed by a direct admission it is “belief.” Students ind no discrepancy between a statement of fact and the same statement reiterated as a belief. Fig. 6. Biology, 7th Ed., 2004. Diferent cover, same falsities.

24.) “One can draw the hominid family tree in two very diferent ways, either lumping variants together or splitting them into separate species.” -Biology, 6th Ed. Raven et al. 2002: 477.

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 don’t even know if various hominid fossils are diferent species. This isn’t 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.

As above, this is typical evolutionary doublespeak; the irst sentence is stated as fact while the following sentence (in the referred igure) shows it was a false statement. 28.) “Any single evolutionary scheme of hominid evolution presented here would be premature.” -Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 404.

So the authors say, and in this form, it almost sounds scientiic. 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 scientiic 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] conirm skeletal evidence that the species [Australopithecus afarensis] had a fully erect posture.” -The Earth Through Time, 7th Ed., HL Levin, 2003: 552.

31.) “These fossil footprints... are not human. … They record… Australopithecus, the group from which our genus, Homo, evolved. … Human evolution is the part of the evolution story … which we know the most.” -Biology, 6th Ed. Raven et al. 2002: 477.

This ongoing myth of australopithecine posture being conirmed by the Laetoli footprints is false. There is no association between the two. The myth was started by Donald Johanson (discoverer of Lucy) who commandeered the footprints from their discoverer, Mary Leakey. Leakey was about to introduce them as the oldest “human” footprints (D. Ellis, The Leakey Family: Leaders in the Search for Human Origins, 1978: 100). Leakey should not have accepted Johanson’s takeover of the Laetoli footprints. Instead, she simply responded with her deep regret that “the Laetoli fellow is now doomed to be called Australopithecus afarensis.” 32.) “Make no mistake about it. They are like modern human footprints.” –Tim White, excavator of the Laetoli footprints; Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald Johanson. 33.) “Because of the recent controversy concerning the teaching of evolution in the public schools... how would you go about convincing the school board that humans have indeed evolved from earlier hominids?” -Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 404.

This is clearly not a normal science question. Modern academia tries to convince students of evolution any way it can. In this particular instance the captive audience science classroom is used to ask a “leading question” of students on an obviously debatable subject. It shows the type of thinking skills students are given as they go through academic training and are sent out into the world. It is not a question for critical thinking. It is one for simple memorization as noted in the Prologue quotes of Part 1. It also shows part of how higher institutional education produces graduates without scientiic objectivity but with an agenda attached (See Part 2). If human evolution is the part of the evolution story the authors of Biology claim we “know the most” then the few quotes provided in this installment should show that the whole paradigm is in trouble. It is no wonder that students who graduate with degrees in the evolution conglomerate come out reliant on techniques of propaganda (Part 1) as a defense for their training. As shown, neither students nor textbook writers are able to distinguish facts from iction when it comes to evolution. Students are trained not to look into the evidence—or lack—for themselves. For them, the only option is to believe that somewhere out there paleontologists have all this overwhelming fossil

evidence they keep hearing about. So, in the inal turn, what we are actually talking about is faith. Faith is a part of all science and is ine 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-identiied as a bear ... and the 'hominid' skull from Venta Micena as a horse.” -Clive Gamble, The Palaeolithic societies of Europe, 1999: 116

“The history of paleoanthropology is one of repeated misidentiication of fossil ancestors.” -Sarmiento et al, The Anatomical Record (The New Anatomist), 2002.

Evolutionists in the U.S. are trying to force national legislation so that evolutionary human origins can be taught to captive-audience school children as fact—unhindered by discussion of conlicting evidence (Fig. 1). Fig. 2. Proof that the 3.6 million-year old Laetoli footprints (about 70 in all) were made by humans and not by australopithecines. A. Australopithecine foot (Wikimedia Commons picture horizontally lipped to facilitate comparison with C). B. Photo of Laetoli footprint (horizontally lipped for comparison with C). C. Drawing of modern human foot bones. Prediction: If you’ve

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 ind 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.

34.) “There is a great deal of fossil evidence that several species of hominids of the genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus were among the earliest hominid fossils.” –Concepts in Biology, 10th Edition, Engor & Ross, 2003: 232. “A great deal of fossil evidence”? Here is what the textbook says just a few lines later: “It is important to recognize that there are few fossils of these early humanlike organisms and that often they are fragments (ibid). 35.) “It is apparent that the australopiths...walked upright like humans.”This central evolutionary claim has essentially no supporting evidence (see Figs. 2, 4 & 5). –Concepts in Biology, 10th Edition, Engor & Ross, 2003: 232.

When children are not permitted to use basic critical hinking skills but instead have a religion forced upon them in a captiveaudience setting with no input from their parents at a very early age and are not permitted to question or dissent from indoctrination through teachers whom they are required to respect then one can clearly see that the United Sates is in trouble not only as a nation willing to sacriice the rational autonomy of its young people but as one that is willing to sacriice scientiic objectivity and innovation for the sake of bufoonery that has duped the majority of scientists for 150 years (see Fig. 3 for thought-provoking entertainment on mass delusion). Fig. 4. Left. Australopithecine foot reconstruction based on conirmed australopithecine bones of a near complete skeleton known as ‘Little Foot,’ Sterkfontein, South Africa (3.3mya); Wikimedia Commons (lipped for comparison in igure). Right. Depression-depth studies comparing one of the Laetoli footprints from Tanzania (3.6mya, i.e. older than Little Foot), a Homo erectus footprint from Ileret, Kenya (1.5mya), and a modern human footprint all showing their obvious ainity to each other—even across 3.6 million years (Wikimedia Commons). These three show no similarity to the australopithecine foot. Despite 35 years of similar observations, agenda-based college textbooks and museums continue to promote to the public the idea that australopithecine apes walked upright like humans.

Do we want a country in which children attending “science” classes are learning pop science where they are not permitted to hear about, read about or see, conlicting evidence, or are not permitted to discuss errors? (see Figs. 46). Fig. 5. Bottom. In this single frame from Evolution: Laetoli Footprints, Owen Lovejoy—Ardi iasco proponent—compares a chimpanzee footprint with one of the Laetoli prints. Quoting

Lovejoy: “There’s 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 diference 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 that’s the kind of ine 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). Signiicance? Bipedalism expert Lovejoy claims that Ardi walked upright. Also, being misinformed by Johanson’s 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 diferent drummers—and 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 don’t 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 ive 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 obvious—that A, Ardi, and B, bonobo, go together. Instead, they imagine that A, Ardi, and C humans as represented here by Michelangelo’s David, go together. (Ardi image by Jay Matternes, Wikimedia Commons; Bonobo photograph courtesy of primatologist and photographer, Frans de Waal; Michelangelo’s 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 conlicting evidence is blocked. The best proof that scientists such as this are not qualiied 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 “doesn’t look much like a chimpanzee, gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives.” That shows that these researchers don’t 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, Ardi’s strangelyhuman posture, gesture and gaze are pure science propaganda. See Ardi: How to create a science myth, PCN #3, January-February 2010).

One of the most basic tools of science is objectivity. When objectivity is permanently thrown out the window—such as when anthropology, biology & paleontology dedicated their cores to Darwinism (call it the modern evolutionary synthesis if you like; it doesn’t matter as it all equals a huge

convoluted intellectual mess)—na�ve scientists poorly trained in normal evaluative skills began the century-long downhill path of constantly seeing ancestors that are not there (Part 1). They continue to see lesser-stage evolutionary ancestors even if they’ve been falsiied as such. And it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about mammals, dinosaurs, or invertebrates; it is all the same. If Americans allow science this bad to be taught as fact, forced on people by judges or legislators who cannot think critically and really have no idea what’s going on, then it will only be the beginning with more idiocy to follow in its wake. A greater loss will be the right for parents to have any say whatsoever in the ’religion’ their children are being taught as ‘fact’ by indoctrinated teachers in schoolrooms across the country. Make no mistake; when a science can’t stand except by appealing to millions of unknown ancestors it is a religion. So, why are evolutionists not qualiied to assess “any” evidence? It is because they lack objectivity which is a mainstay of science. Since Darwin’s proclamation that cognition “must” evolve they have already ruled out the possibility that our ancestors could have been as intelligent as us. This is why they have no choice but to censor empirical evidence of early intelligence or early people in the Americas. This is the problem with allowing an agenda or an ideology to run your science; if the ideology goes, the whole science goes with it. This world is a place of awe and wonder. If we try and make it anything less by forgetting what science really is, and, instead, force on innocent school children a secular religion as though it were science, not permitting them to think or question something so important as their origins, not permitting them to see or discuss conlicting evidence, then we are not on a scientiic path and should call ourselves something other than scientists.

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 ictions 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 efect 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 conlicting 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 afront 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.

In the document, the ideological tenets of Darwinism have been seamlessly interwoven with actual facts in a manner which easily deceives those (including PhDs, attorneys, and politicians) who are not objectively or experientiallyinformed about fossils and the tactics that scientists are willing to use in order to make evolutionary speculations appear to be facts. 95% of the propaganda techniques I detailed in Part 1 as being ubiquitous in college textbooks— including the most insidious—are in the document. In a joint efort, three institutions—the National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—have managed to push through legislation in the 50 States an indoctrination package to create a ‘common’ ideological mindset in American children (Fig. 1). This crafty work of propaganda is a means by which a group professing science is able to force their ideas on children who are obligated to be receptive without having the normal scientiic responsibility of providing evidence (Figs. 2-3) challenging the material the children are forced to absorb. Anyone can force ideas on children. The evolutionary community after 150 years of special privileges of low rigor has failed to convince critical thinkers. So, now they are simply bypassing normal science and underhandedly going straight to systematic indoctrination of children in captive-audience K-12 classrooms.

The language is worded so that Darwinism—a religion masquerading as science —can be legally taught as fact protected by provisions assuring it can be taught unhindered by any resentation of conlicting evidence. Not only is free critical thinking not permitted but children are to be assessed as having “understanding” only according to their ability to promote the tenets of Darwinism. So let’s cut to the chase: The indoctrination package in its various forms is known by such names as “Common Core” and the “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS). They employ the same kinds of false statements of fact, obfuscation (intentional vagueness, confusion), half-truths, disinformation, faulty cause & efect, card stacking, milieu control, red herring, transfer, unstated assumptions, and other trickery I detailed in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Unfortunately (as a Star Trek fan) they also took advantage of the Star Trek: Next Generation science fan base by using the exploitation trick called ‘Transfer’ (Part 1, p12). Now that the efect of these deceptions— long inherent in textbooks—are included in U.S. legislative documents and are already being implemented a national lawsuit is not only possible but is a most worthy cause. Any attorney or politician worth their salt should be expert on recognizing abuses of language. And when you are participating in formation of a National State Religion, there is no excuse for U.S. politicians to simply trust the integrity of AAAS; they cannot be trusted because evidence of change is pushed while evidence of continuity is withheld (Figs. 2-3). Fig. 3. Only three of thousands of examples of “living fossils” and other evidence that will be blocked from K-12 children or minimized through evolutionary double-speak. Do not trust anything evolution propagandists say about cognitive evolution or the topic of living fossils including their attempt to debunk the popular term as it is all aimed at protecting evolutionism. They must explain away any evidence that shows continuity. Modern animals are nearly identical to when they irst appeared in the fossil record. Upper Left. Devonian age Lingula brachiopod from Spain. Lingula has shown virtually no change since it irst appeared in the Early Ordovician, c. 485 million years ago. Upper right. A modern Lingula from Australia. Middle left. Pliocene age Terebratula brachiopod. The genus dates back to the Late Devonian, c. 380 million years ago. Compare with a modern-day terebratulid, Middle right, from the author’s collection. Lower left. Fossil horseshoe crab. Horseshoe crabs date back to the Late Ordovician, c. 450 million years ago. Compare with a modern horseshoe crab (and count the spines), Lower right. Half of what science calls diferent species are no more diferent species than dog breeds are.

Quotations are taken from:

DCI (Disciplinary Core Idea) Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards [Notes: Important trickery is large font and bolded so that indoctrination language will stand out clearly. The normal science sections in the NGSS document are good; the problem is how the drafters have seamlessly interwoven false evolutionary statements of fact and other forms of deception into normal science. Remember, the trickery is multidimensional and has made it past the eyes of both naive attorneys, teachers, and legislators. The lawsuits on the matter that have been iled already are by concerned citizen groups where many are not aware of the depth of the corruption in the sciences I’ve been exposing (biology, paleontology, anthropology); nor do they know the depth of blinkeredness in teachers, professors, and other professionals whose critical thinking skills have already been wiped clean through ‘higher’ education. This is where the experts pointing out lack of thinking ability in U.S. graduates cited in Part 1 are easily proven to be true.] 1.) “The crosscutting concepts of cause and efect and systems and system models play an important role in students’ understanding of the evolution of life on Earth.” -DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 50. [Faulty Cause & Efect, Part 1, p1]

2.) “An important aspect of the history of Earth is that geologic events and conditions have afected 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 diferences between ... organisms living today ... and organisms in the fossil

enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.” record,

-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 66. [Standard evolutionary double-speak, fact becomes inference, Part 2]

4.) “Students can construct explanations for the processes of natural selection and evolution and communicate how multiple lines of evidence support these explanations. Students can evaluate evidence of

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]

5.) “Evidence of Common Ancestry …Genetic information provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of diferent organisms.” -DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 96. [Card stacking, Half-truth, Obfuscation, Part 1; Standard evolutionary double-speak, facts lead backwards to inference, Part 2]

“Students who demonstrate understanding can:” “Analyze and interpret data for patterns in the fossil record that document the existence, diversity, extinction, and change of life forms .… Emphasis is on inding patterns of changes. … [They can] Apply scientiic ideas... to construct an explanation to infer evolutionary relationships.” -DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 66. [Abuse of science and parental trust by promoting lack of discernment: Students are told to see only change when looking at the fossil record and to be blind to evidence of continuity (see Fig. 3); this way they can infer evolution. Use of the word “understanding” in context of a forced belief system is underhanded science.]

“Students who demonstrate understanding can:” “Communicate scientiic information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence. ...Emphasis is on a conceptual understanding of the role each line of evidence has relating to common ancestry and biological evolution.” -DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards, p. 96.

[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 missionaries—not 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 ine print of the NGS Standards, p96: “Evaluate the evidence behind currently accepted explanations.” ...

“Ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred.”… “Natural selection leads to adaptation, that is, to a population dominated by organisms that are anatomically, behaviorally, and physiologically well suited to survive and reproduce in a speciic environment.” … “Changes in the physical environment … have thus contributed to the expansion of some species, the emergence of new distinct species.” -DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 96. [First, remember that the term “species” is indiscriminately bantered about by the science community. It has become a “wild card” without irm deinition making for easy use in Darwinism (Part 2). Second, contrary to what the science community tells people—that the history of life on earth is literally a chain of ill-suited species needing to evolve to survive—the actual fossil record consists of nothing but well-suited organisms that ‘ain’t’, and never were, broke. Part 2: p17:#10 (see also Fig. 3). Thirdly, what the NG Science Standards calls “currently accepted explanations” are nothing but origin myths clothed in rhetorical jibberjabber. Notice above that what “can be inferred” seamlessly morphs into the usual false statements of fact. Obviously, those pushing this agenda are not true scientists as already proved in Debunking Evolutionary Propaganda Part 3 and Part 4.]

The following quote from the mandate, that American children—for 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.

Americans need to recognize that the NG Science Standards for biology— legislation to force Darwinism on students as fact while blocking them from exploring conlicting evidence—is corrupted science. For these “Standards” to have made it this far is the result of decades of textbook fraud and a lack of interdisciplinary perspective regarding the fossil record. Aside from children losing the K-12 window for developing critical thinking skills American complacency and gullibility are being tested. Any grade school subject depending upon tactics such as those discussed is not ready to be taught as science.