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. Steens Mathematics Ed.

The pattern is clear: the percentage of students achieving higher order skills is
declining.
-Baron & Sternberg, Ibid.

Fig. 1. The Satier or Man of the woods, illustration by George Edwards; South American
ape, photograph by Francois de Loys; Ardi, illustration by J. H. Matternes; Bonobo,
photograph by Frans de Waal.
To some researchers surprise, the female skeleton [that of the recently unveiled 4.4
million-year old Ardipithecus fossil known as Ardi] doesn't look much like a chimpanzee,
gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives. -Ann Gibbons

It is quite interesting that comments such as this one from the October
issue of Science no longer raise a question mark in the publics mind
despite what anyone can see with their own eyes.
But this was par for the course in 2009, the 200th birthday celebration of
Charles Darwin. It was the year in which Darwinian anthropology made its most
concerted effort ever to promote an ideology rather than simply report the
facts.
The great discovery, as it was called, was, in reality, a carefully-manufactured
mythological being. And the idea, of course, was the usual evolution-bynatural-selection in which all species come about from one another through
infinitesimal changes over time. The idea has always been plagued with factual
and mathematical problems, but has reached a pinnacle in Ardi.
Still, Ardi's debut came through a flood of media hype and full uncritical
support of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
This prompts the question, is it good science to so boldly promote an idea
which can never be tested in real time?
In this article, I will answer that question: Firstly, I will explain the humanization
of apes by science. Secondly, I will examine the coelacanth problem or why it
was necessary to downplay Ardis obvious similarity to the bonobo, and lastly, I

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

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 filled 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-fleshed Ardi complete with
human features and presented as scientific 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 Ardis image was entirely driven by a collective desire in the
scientific community to promote her as a transitional bipedal link, unique in time, rather than
simply as an ape.

Proponents of Ardi and sceptics alike have called the resulting creature, with its
odd mixture of ape and human traits, bizarre. Yet few question it. Why?
Unlike Ardi, de Waals bonobo photograph (Fig.2) is completely objective.
Though it resembles Ardi, no one calls it bizarre, as de Waal is not attempting
to pull more out of the bonobo than is actually there. De Waals photograph
shows beyond doubt that Ardi is not unique. So, rather than add human
features that make Ardi look bizarre, truly objective science would let her
remain an ape.
But here is the problem. If the Ardi scientists admit Ardis similarity to the
bonobo it would go straight against the very reason she was hyped in the first
place. This is because Ardi is not simply a fossil being objectively presented to
the public as one would expect from other scientific fields; she is an image
created to promote an ideology.
With evidence as unambiguous as Dr. de Waals bonobo photograph, no
scientist would attempt to convince the world that bonobos have fully-human
posture or that they can walk in a near-human fashion. Nor would they suggest
that such creatures will eventually evolve into humans as de Waal himself
points out: Bonobos are not on their way to becoming human any more than
we are on our way to becoming like them.
But attempting to convince is exactly what the Ardi team has done. Working to
convince rather than prove is quite common in evolutionary anthropology
where evidence can never be tested in real time but where the stakes of public
interest are high.

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 difficult 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
Ardis use as a transitional link and show her to simply be an ape hardly
changed in 4.4 million years.
In fact, the only differences 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 Channels 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 film's depiction is that troublesome
grasping toe. -John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist

So, has an accurate image of Ardipithecus been presented to the public?

Definitely 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
(3.63.8 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 scientific 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 film's depiction is that
troublesome grasping toe.
-John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist

The ape-foot to human-foot timeline

The figure 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 difficult to
imagine one as an ancestor of the other. The real problem is made clear when
scientific 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
teams bipedality expert, Owen Lovejoy, said that the Laetoli footprints are
what one would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long
period of time. -Owen Lovejoy, NOVA: In Search of Human Origins

So, these opinions bring up a reasonable question. How long is a very long
period of time?
According to footprint expert, Louise Robbins, of the original Laetoli team
(along with Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather
than apes), the Laetoli hominid-type had been walking erect for at least a
million years (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind). If we give Robbins and
Leakeys expertise any credence, then this certainly creates a problem as it
would mean that humans were here 4.8 million years ago, that is, 400,000
years before Ardi our supposed ancestor.
Even if we took Lovejoys comment to mean something more on the order of
only several hundred thousand years, then feet of a modern type were around

virtually at the same time as Ardi (4.2 to 4.4 million yrs ago). That wouldnt
even leave any natural-selection tweaking time between Ardi and Laetoli.
In other words, modern human feet and those like Ardi or bonobos have clearly
remained unchanged, side-by-side, for over four million years.

DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 1
Basic propaganda techniques in college textbooks
A lifelong reader of textbooks in every field exposes thousands of
examples of false statements of fact and other propaganda
techniques easily spotted in anthropology, biology, and paleontology
textbooks
By John Feliks
Fig. 1. The field is "anthropology."
Anthropology: the study of humanity.

Evidence of the conflation 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 deletedif
you can look at the title and cover of this
required college textbook and not find
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 linguisticthe 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
conflicting 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 sciencesdo
not need to employ propaganda or
coercion as they simply go
wherever the evidence leads.
However, evolutionary fields are
ideologically pre-committed and
depend entirely upon propaganda
and withholding conflicting
evidence in order to persuade.

Fig. 2. The Introduction to Physical

Anthropology serieswhich is
purportedly about humanityhas
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
effect of causing students to
associate the term Anthropology
with apes. Manipulation at this level
presented as fact is an affront to
education just as a hypothetical book
called, 2+2=5: The History of
Mathematics, would be to anyone
interested in mathematics; the
difference 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 peoples thinking. The stakes are very high:

. Faulty Cause & Effect (This technique suggests that because B follows A, A
must have caused B. Remember, just because two events or two sets of data
are related does not necessarily mean that one caused the other to happen.
This is the #1 flaw of evolutionary thinking. My first love is 30 years of
invertebrate paleontologywith no indoctrinationprior to taking on
evolutionary psychology. What I know of the fossil record, therefore, is pretty
clean. As all researchers know, the fossil record can logically be regarded a
record of appearances and disappearancesbut not a record of causes and
effects.

. Card stacking (Evidence conflicting with the agenda is kept from the target
audience, causing students, professors,
A belief that the
evidence for evolution
is overwhelming is
a modern academic
ruse directly related
to propaganda.
Students dont come
out of university able
to think for
themselves on the
matteras one might
expectbut only with
a set of instructions
on what to think.

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
humanitynot
the study of apes.
But the intention
is to make the
two appear
synonymous. Try
this test of
confidence in
ones own critical
thinking: Look at
the picture in Fig.
1 and say to
ones self the
word, humanity. If you get a sense that
somethings not quite right then you are on
your way out of a propaganda-induced
delusion. To force such buffoonery on students
in a captive audience setting is an affront 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 conflicting evidence
especially when primary tenets such as
cognitive evolution have already been falsified
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 conflicting views appear
subhuman. E.g., Anyone who doesnt believe in
evolution is stupid, ignorant, or insane.
-Richard Dawkins.) Im 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 find 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 clichs (Blocking discussion through use of overly

simplistic phrases or arguments. E.g., attacks on science, as typified by
NCSE CEO, Eugenie C. Scott. As Ive 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 falsified. By blocking falsifications 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 conflicting 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
freedomLincoln, freedom for the slaves, and Darwin, freedom for the mind.
Suggestions went so far as to try and get Lincolns and Darwins 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
significantly 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 cant 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 reigngrade school through college and university
textbooks and instructionis 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 corebiology, paleontology,
anthropologyare in trouble. It will take a major increase in people ready to
think for themselves but then the paradigm will flip.

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 dont 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 dont 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 guessesthe steps we suggest are just that:
guesses.
Say what? This is evolution buffoonery at its best: First, present an imagined story as though it
were fact. Then, admit that there is no consensus for the tenet even though it is regarded as
pivotal. Note also the improper use of the term, history. In normal thinking, speculations
are fiction. Fiction parading as scientific history should raise everyones eyebrows.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 587 (Fig. 3, next page).

4.) Body plans are basic structural designs [heading]. Most animals
have either radial or bilateral symmetry. The evolution of
bilaterally symmetrical animals [heading]. The common ancestors of
bilateral animals were probably simple, bilaterally symmetrical
animals composed of flattened masses of cells.
The first heading is a cunning trick of understatement diminishing the accomplishment by
inserting basic. Without the diversion it reads: Body plans are structural designs. The next
heading, presented as fact then followed by probably, is standard evolutionary doublespeak.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 562-3.

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 answersin 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
confident on how insects originated. Heres 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 confidence 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 fly

allowed the insects to escape from
potential predators and to traverse
boundaries that might otherwise have
been insurmountable.
Something as complex as flightboth in the
engineering requirements and the physicsmust 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 fly. Insect flight is now described as
developing with the suddenness of the Cambrian
Explosionalready 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 developmentsinsects invading the land
to become the most prominent animals plus the first
animal with a likely ability to flyboth 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 different 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 fields lack rigor:

1.) Biology, 6th Ed. 2002.
Raven et al. Absolutely
loaded
with
fictions
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 fiction 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 first half creates fictional
characters and the second half proceeds to describe their abilities. Everyone can recognize
simple fiction. This imaginative fiction 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 fiction 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 lungfishes.
the stubby, jointed fins of their ancestors evolved into walking
legs.
Standard unknown ancestors evolutionary fiction presented as fact.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001: 587.

10.) The design of those legs remained largely unchanged

throughout the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates.
An example of fact blended seamlessly into fiction. 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 configurations 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 efficiency or
economy by any human construction whatsoever). In many cases, the very same levers are
built by completely different means and with different construction materials. All of these lever
designs have remained unchangeda fact which does not support any evolutionary theory.
Theres a folk saying, If it aint broke, dont fix it. And contrary to what the evolution
community would have naive people believe, the actual fossil record consists of nothing but
designs that aint 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 inefficient 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 thinkerespecially 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 conflicting evidence.
The goal? Make it so students literally cant 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 fields 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 buffoonery stated as fact. The textbook goes on to say that evolutionary biologists
cant even define the term species. In other words, after 150 years they dont have a
definition 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 differences in dog breeds which would never be called different
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 different definition. Does anyone really believe that there are thousands of African
cichlid species? Does anyone really believe that Darwins finches are different 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 different definition of species, e.g., groups of
animals that can interbreed but are isolated, occupy different niches, or which have
different behavioral characteristics. The trick can get them out of any corner they find
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
insufficient to identify the ancestors of birds with certainty.
Contradictions like this are standard to every evolutionary textbook . Doublespeak is an
easy-to-spot evolutionist trick where they are either deliberately attempting to weasel or
are innocently getting all mixed up in their own rhetoric. The trick is so common it can be
generalized: It begins with a false statement of fact and concludes with an admission that
there isnt really any evidence. To show that evolution textbooks alone get away with this,
imagine a mathematics textbook that said, 2+2=5. Well, we dont really have any proof
that 2+2=5. Or imagine a chemistry textbook that said, One hydroxide ion (OH) plus an
additional hydrogen atom (H) gives you a carbon atom (C). Well, we havent really
confirmed exactly what constitutes carbon, but many experts believe it involves the
hydroxide ion. As you can see, no real sciences could ever get away with such things. So,
how is it that evolution textbooks are not held to any standard of rigor?
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et
al., 2001: 591.

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. Its like saying, The horseshoe crab, coelacanth, and
platypus have probably not changed much, when we already know that they are living
fossils. (Note: Confidently 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 diversification of placental mammals.
This is the standard play-it-safe trick of not offering a specific 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 modified into wings, bats differ
little from their immediate ancestors among the insectivores.
Indeed, with the exception of wings they closely resemble living
shrews.
Indeed, with the exception of wings an airplane closely resembles an automobile yet only
those committed to evolutionism would try to understate such a profound difference.
Immediate ancestors is a misnomer as there are no immediate ancestors of bats. If
evolutionists misusing understatement were tempered with basic engineering, physics, or
problem-solving, they would know not to think of profundities as if they were trivialities.

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 fields:
anthropology, biology, paleontology.
These fields are diminished as sciences because students are being coerced
into a belief system and blocked from facts conflicting with that system. As
noted before, if an ideology is debunked entire fields have the potential of
collapsing. Normal sciences do not have this potential. Ideologically-committed
fields have no choice but to produce corrupted textbooks while simultaneously
blocking students from conflicting evidence. In normal sciences readers would
never tolerate textbook propaganda or the withholding of evidence. So, the
question has to be asked, why are evolutionary fields getting away with it?
When it comes to something as important as origins everyone has a right to
hear the evidence presented objectively.

DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 3
Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 2nd
half
A lifelong reader of textbooks in every field exposes thousands of
examples of false statements of fact and other propaganda
techniques easily spotted in anthropology, biology, and paleontology
textbooks

"A clear line of

fossils 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 peoples
beliefs. Anthropology,
biology, and
paleontology have
become a conglomerate
easily provable to
employ fraud in the
captive-audience
science classroom.
Except that theyre
being paid, I would not
want to be the AAAS or

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 influenced modern
technology. Thats obvious. However, I would like to
say that one of
Star Treks
biggest
influences on me
as a 12-year old
was Science
Officer Spocks
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 first 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 effort 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
field to know this) none of which show any clear line. In other words, the
statement proves that the authors of a leading biology textbook either have no
idea what theyre talking about when it comes to the fossil record or are
participants in fraud. Still, it is presented to trusting students as fact. One way
deceptions like this thrive is that each field in the
template-thinking conglomeratebiologypaleontology-anthropologykeeps duping the other
while individuals in each group have no grasp of the
issues from outside the conglomerate. Put the
experts on the stand and they wont repeat this
statement without qualification, as only an easilyduped judge such as Judge Jones could buy it (I have
read the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcriptit is packed
with trickery). No one who knows fossils, strata, or
capabilities of time would support the statement on
the stand. If they did it would enable a single on-theball opposing attorney to crack wide open the entire mindset in one fell swoop.
Fig. 3. The Earth Through Time, 10th Ed. (2013). Being historical geology (i.e. Darwinism
rather than objective geology), every edition, like all textbooks in the genre, is filled to the brim
with fictions taught as fact.

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. Dont expect any surprises.
Prediction: the reader should find as much fiction
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 find 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 fiction is

first presented as fact followed by a direct
admission it is belief. Students find no
discrepancy between a statement of fact and
the same statement reiterated as a belief.
Fig. 6. Biology, 7th Ed., 2004. Different cover, same
falsities.

24.) One can draw the hominid family

tree in two very different 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 dont even
know if various hominid fossils are different species. This isnt exactly
unimportant when it comes to the idea of evolution. The quandary applies to
all fossils.
25.) The fossil database for hominids is frustratingly sparse.
26.) Paleoanthropologists make educated guesses about which
fossil species represent ancestors that live at the branch points of the
cladogram
-Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman and Herron, 1998: 538, 541-2.

27.) Early in its evolutionary history, the primate lineage split into two main
branches. Too few fossil primates have been discovered to reveal with certainty
their evolutionary relationships.
-Life: The Science of Biology, 6th Ed. (Vol. II: Evolution, Diversity, and Ecology; Purves et al.,
2001): 595.

As above, this is typical evolutionary doublespeak; the first sentence is stated

as fact while the following sentence (in the referred figure) 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 scientific. However, a few
pages further the textbook proceeds to tell students exactly how humans
evolved as if it had never said otherwise:
29.) The oldest known hominid is Sahelanthropus. ...It was followed
by Orrorin...then...Ardipithecus. Recent discoveries indicate
Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus. ...The human lineage
began...with the evolution of Homo habilis. ...Homo erectus evolved
from Homo habilis. ...Homo sapiens evolved from H. erectus.
-Historical Geology, 5th Ed, Wicander et al., 2007: 410.

The human evolution mythology presented as a fact. The authors even misuse
a trusted scientific word, indicate. Indicate expresses a certainty. There is
no more certainty that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus than that
bonobos evolved into Australopithecus.
30.) The footprints [the 3.6 million-year old Laetoli, Tanzania, human
footprints] confirm skeletal evidence that the species [Australopithecus
afarensis] had a fully erect posture.
-The Earth Through Time, 7th Ed., HL Levin, 2003: 552.

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 confirmed 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
Johansons 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 scientific
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
fiction when it comes to evolution. Students are trained not to look into the
evidenceor lackfor 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 final turn, what we are actually
talking about is faith. Faith is a part of all science and is fine except when
promoting a myth of origins as fact while withholding relevant evidence that
does not support the myth. That circumstance is not science.

DEBUNKING EVOLUTIONARY
PROPAGANDA, Part 4
Evolutionists are not qualified to assess 'any'
evidence
"When evolution-motivated science dupes the whole planet for 35 years then you know it is time
for open classroom discussions."
Fig. 1. Museums and corrupted textbooks continue to mislead
anyone trusting that evolution is science. One way in which
the falsehood is enforced is by portraying ancient apes not only
with human feet but with human posture, human gait, human
gestures and expressions. Active in U.S. legislation is an
aggressive agenda to force these debunked ideas on captiveaudience school children as scientific fact. Images: Wikimedia
Commons. Are we really ready to allow an evidence-free state
religion? The U.S. has had none since 1776. Evolution is
plagued by one fiasco after another while textbooks make
thousands of easily-documented false statements of fact. If
Americans do not wake up there is the potential of losing the
right to openly question falsehood in general.

The Prezletice human molar has been re-identified as a bear ... and
the 'hominid' skull from Venta Micena as a horse.
-Clive Gamble, The Palaeolithic societies of Europe, 1999: 116

The history of paleoanthropology is one of repeated misidentification

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 factunhindered by discussion of conflicting 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 flipped to facilitate comparison with C). B. Photo of Laetoli footprint (horizontally
flipped for comparison with C). C. Drawing of modern human foot bones. Prediction: If youve

been through standard science training you will probably experience some resistance and even
imagine that A & B must go together somehow (scientists have tried every means even going
so far as to suggest that the big toe was tucked under the foot). Since evolutionists are only
looking for transitional ape-men that is what they are going to find and see. It should be
recalled that the Laetoli footprints were commandeered by Donald Johanson for
australopithecines in the 1970s as proof that they walked upright despite the fact that their
discoverer, Mary Leakey, was about to announce them as the oldest human footprints (D.
Ellis, The Leakey Family: Leaders in the Search for Human Origins , 1978: 100). The footprints
excavator, Tim White said that they were unmistakably like modern human footprints. When
evolution-motivated science dupes the whole planet for 35 years then you know it is time for
open classroom discussions.

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 sacrifice the rational autonomy of its young people but as one that is
willing to sacrifice scientific objectivity and innovation for the sake of
buffoonery 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 confirmed australopithecine bones
of a near complete skeleton known as Little Foot, Sterkfontein, South Africa (3.3mya);
Wikimedia Commons (flipped for comparison in figure). 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 affinity to each othereven 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, conflicting evidence, or are not permitted to discuss errors? (see Figs. 46).
Fig. 5. Bottom. In this single frame from Evolution: Laetoli Footprints, Owen LovejoyArdi
fiasco proponentcompares a chimpanzee footprint with one of the Laetoli prints. Quoting

Lovejoy: Theres no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. The Laetoli prints give
us direct record of how our ancestors walked almost 4 million years ago.... When we compare
the Laetoli footprint to that of a chimpanzee the difference is immediately obvious. The
chimpanzee...still [trick term of evolution rhetoric] has a free great toe and that great toe
extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. However, in the Laetoli prints,
the great toe is in line with the rest of the toes and thats the kind of fine tuning that you
would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time. Top. Showing
how the chimp foot is indistinguishable from Ardi (see Fig. 6). Significance? Bipedalism expert
Lovejoy claims that Ardi walked upright. Also, being misinformed by Johansons 35-year
takeover of Laetoli, Lovejoy assumed Laetoli was an australopithecine (see Figs. 1 & 2).

When I was growing up I had great teachers who paid attention to kids
including those who followed different drummersand not in the least
derogatory ways. In one class, around the 5th grade, I did not wish to
participate in the class assigned bulletin board project. It was some currently
popular topic; I dont remember what. But my teacher asked what I was
interested in working on instead and I said a board about dinosaurs and fossils.
To my surprise she said OK as I recall without hesitation and invited anyone
else in the class who wished to participate. There were only five or six of us

working on that rebel board but the point is that the teacher was not a
propagandist pushing a state agenda on kids like they are now. My teacher had
enough of a broad view to encourage students to explore where their
inspirations took them. I had several other teachers like that in elementary
school. And it is teachers like that who helped me retain at least a small degree
of faith in academia despite the fabricated propaganda pushed there today.

Fig. 6. An
example of how
the entire
community of
dogmaticallytrained
evolutionists
cannot see the
obviousthat A,
Ardi, and B,
bonobo, go
together. Instead,
they imagine that
A, Ardi, and C
humans as
represented here
by Michelangelos
David, go
together. (Ardi
image by Jay
Matternes,
Wikimedia
Commons; Bonobo photograph courtesy of primatologist and photographer, Frans de Waal;
Michelangelos David, Wikimedia Commons.) Ardi, a 4.4 million-year old fossil ape was hyped
by AAAS, the journal Science, and the general science community as proof of evolution. This is
the community trying to force legislation that these ideas be taught in science classrooms as
fact while conflicting evidence is blocked. The best proof that scientists such as this are not
qualified to assess any evidence is from Ann Gibbons overview of Ardi in the October 2009
issue of Science. She noted how surprised researchers were that Ardi doesnt look much like a
chimpanzee, gorilla, or any of our closest living primate relatives. That shows that these
researchers dont seem to know about apes at all and also that they seem to lack important
science skills such as being able to make reasonable comparisons. BTW, Ardis strangelyhuman posture, gesture and gaze are pure science propaganda. See Ardi: How to create a
science myth, PCN #3, January-February 2010).

One of the most basic tools of science is objectivity. When objectivity is

permanently thrown out the windowsuch as when anthropology, biology &
paleontology dedicated their cores to Darwinism (call it the modern
evolutionary synthesis if you like; it doesnt matter as it all equals a huge

convoluted intellectual mess)nave 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 theyve been
falsified as such. And it doesnt matter if were 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 whats
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 cant stand
except by appealing to millions of unknown ancestors it is a religion.
So, why are evolutionists not qualified to assess any evidence? It is because
they lack objectivity which is a mainstay of science. Since Darwins
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 conflicting evidence, then we are not on a scientific 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 fictions and
falsehoods as though it were factual science.
Here, I hope to show that a legislative document endangering the long-trusted
name of science to the effect of endorsing a State Religion has been introduced
and pushed through U.S. legislation by several powerful institutions.
Fig. 1. When trusting children in grade school are exploited by the education system and
placed in the hands of propagandists as part of the Common Core Science Standards their
formative window years for learning critical-thinking skills are lost forever. By the time these
children have gone through the systematic 12-year indoctrination they will lack all ability to
question Darwinism. This is accomplished through the techniques listed in Part 1 and Part 2.
When American science institutions through U.S. legislation force an ideological belief on
children while blocking classroom discussion of conflicting evidence you know you are dealing
with corrupted sciences (the three corrupted sciences are biology, paleontology, and
anthropology). Science does not behave this way and it discredits modern education.

Manipulation of this nature is an affront to the intellectual rights of American children and their
parents. Anyone who knows anything at all about State intellectual oppression in history should
recognize what is happening here in the U.S. at this very moment.

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 insidiousare in the document.
In a joint effort, three institutionsthe 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 scientific 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 Darwinisma religion masquerading as science

can be legally taught as fact protected by provisions assuring it can be
taught unhindered by any resentation of conflicting 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 lets 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 & effect, 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 effect of these deceptions
long inherent in textbooksare 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 first appeared in the fossil record. Upper
Left. Devonian age Lingula brachiopod from Spain. Lingula has shown virtually no change
since it first 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 authors 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 different species are no
more different 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 filed already are by concerned citizen groups
where many are not aware of the depth of the corruption in the sciences Ive
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 effect 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 & Effect, Part 1, p1]

2.) An important aspect of the history of Earth is that geologic events and
conditions have affected the evolution of life.
-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 51.
[False statement of fact, Part 1, p1]

3.) The fossil record... documents the existence, diversity, extinction, and
change of many life forms throughout the history of life on Earth. Anatomical
similarities and differences between ... organisms living today ... and organisms in the fossil

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 different 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
finding patterns of changes. [They can] Apply scientific 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 scientific 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 missionariesnot
scientists. Card stacking, Part 1. Abnormal science behavior: As in Part 3: p12: #33,
students are being trained to convince themselves and others of evolution.]

The following quotes are from the fine print of the NGS Standards, p96:
Evaluate the evidence behind currently accepted explanations. ...

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 specific 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 firm definition making for easy use in
Darwinism (Part 2). Second, contrary to what the science community tells peoplethat the
history of life on earth is literally a chain of ill-suited species needing to evolve to survivethe
actual fossil record consists of nothing but well-suited organisms that aint, 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 childrenfor a grade
may only interpret evidence in one way should leave no doubt as to the
degraded state of U.S. science education. This one is for middle school
children:
Students can construct explanations based on evidence to support
fundamental understandings of natural selection and evolution.
...They are able to use fossil records ... to support their
understanding.
-DCI Arrangements of the Next Generation Science Standards , p. 50.

Americans need to recognize that the NG Science Standards for biology

legislation to force Darwinism on students as fact while blocking them from
exploring conflicting evidenceis 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.