Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The time lag between nonsense evolution news and real life falsifications …

arroba Email

… means students go away with nonsense stuffed in their heads

From “Neanderthal-Heidelberg Distinction Blurs” (Creation-Evolution Headlines, June 14, 2012), we learn: that – regarding the most recent discoveries that Neanderthals were basically just humans with bad press,

The real tragedy of these reversals is the momentum of falsified stories. There is a long time lag from the time old ideas are discarded to the time textbooks, museum displays and TV documentaries are replaced. Students are not told there is a “constructive scientific debate.” They are not told there is any debate! Under the flawed direction of evolutionary anthropologists, artists (working in the present) create imaginative dioramas of fake histories that are presented as fact to impressionable minds. Students graduate and go on to their own careers with these false impressions; how many of them ever hear the evolutionists say they were wrong? Do you think the makers of BBC specials that hire naked actors and CGI (computer generated imagination) animators to portray alleged “human evolution” are going to go back and fix the many mistakes in documentaries made years ago, that continue to be shown on TV and continue to make money for them? The debate is destructive, not constructive. The new view does not “progress our understanding” (speak for yourself, Chris); it is a regression, if not a blind drunken sailor’s walk.

We must keep in mind that the labels and stories are all recent and artificial. Heidelberg Man didn’t exist in the past with that name; neither did Neanderthal Man. Various populations of humans with certain trivial differences in anatomy lived in various places — that’s all. The categories and interpretations are all made up in the present. The bones are just props … More.

Yeah, for movies.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I agree that it's frustrating when new data changes the models but, what can you do? Part of the problem is not with the science or the scientists but with the way the science is reported. I think most scientists are pretty good about admitting that all knowledge is provisional and that new information could change their conclusions. It would be good if the reporters would put in that disclaimer as well. I think we all have to get used to the idea that as our knowledge base increases our theories and models must be updated. And we have to try and keep up. Jerad

Leave a Reply