Evolution quotes # 50

Stephen Jay Gould; teacher of biology, geology and history of science at Harvard University:

"Science...is supposed to be an objective enterprise, with common criteria of procedure and standards of evidence that should lead all people of good will to accept a documented conclusion...

But I would reject any claim that personal preference, the root of aesthetic judgment, does not play a key role in science...our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. Historians and philosophers of science often make a distinction between the logic and psychologic of a scientific conclusion-or 'context of justification' and 'context of discovery' in the jargon…

The myth of a separate mode based on rigorous objectivity and arcane, largely mathematical knowledge, vouchsafed only to the initiated, may provide some immediate benefits in bamboozling a public to regard us as a new priesthood, but must ultimately prove harmful in erecting barriers to truly friendly understanding and in falsely persuading so many students that science lies beyond their capabilities...the myth of an arcane and enlightened priesthood of scientists....

T.S. Kuhn referred to the shared worldview of scientists as a paradigm (see his classic 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Such paradigms, in Kuhn's view, are so constraining, and so unbreakable in their own terms, that fundamentally new theories must be imported from elsewhere (insights of other disciplines, conscious radicalism of young rebels within a field) and must then triumph by rapid replacement (scientific revolution), rather than by incremental advance."

Stephen Jay Gould, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, 103(2): 14, Feb. 1994, pp. 14-16

Evolution quotes #49

Today being April 1st, which in the USA is “April Fool’s Day,” it seemed quite relevant to present the following, quotation from Do-While Jones, “Death and Taxonomy,” Science Against Evolution website:

“…evolutionists believe that because the bobcat, cheetah, domestic cat, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, ocelot, puma, and tiger are so similar, they all must have evolved from an extinct common ancestor (the missing cat link).
They also believe that the missing cat ancestor, and the missing bear ancestor, and the missing dog ancestor all evolved from a missing carnivore ancestor.
The missing carnivore ancestor and the missing rodent ancestor, and the missing ancestors of the other 16 orders, all evolved from a missing mammal ancestor.
The missing mammal ancestor, the missing fish ancestor, the missing amphibian ancestor, the missing bird ancestor, and the missing reptile ancestor, all evolved from the missing vertebrate ancestor.
(Or, perhaps, the missing bird ancestor evolved from a reptile ancestor.)
And all these missing vertebrate ancestors either evolved from an unknown invertebrate, or evolved from the missing common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.”

Evolution quotes #48

Le Gros Clark "'Probably nothing has done more to introduce confusion into the
story of human evolution than the reckless propensity for inventing new (and
sometimes unnecessarily complicated) names for fragmentary fossil relics that
turn out eventually to belong to genera or species previously known.' Instead of
filling gaps in the story of human ancestry, this habit tended 'to produce gaps
that did not exist.'[1]
This problem has in some part been eased in the
half-century since Hooton made his pithy remarks. But it remains inescapably
true that applying the correct label is astonishingly difficult, not least
because such labels are in a sense arbitrary abstractions, and especially so
when the material on which the analysis is being done ins fragmentary and
eroded. 'It is one so difficult that I think it would be legitimate to despair
that one could ever turn into a science.'"[2]

[1] Man-Apes or Ape-Men, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, p. 9

[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 27 citing "Choose Your Ancestors," lecture at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Sep. 1974

Evolution quotes #47

"If all this were not bad enough, Hooton warns that 'in addition to the
frailties inseparable from the enactment of the role of original describer, one
must also discount the author's previous commitments on the subject of fossil
man, the ghosts of earlier opinions which rise to haunt him in the
interpretation of new evidence.' A dispassionate analysis of new fossil evidence
is possible, he says, 'only when one awaits the reworking of the material by
persons not emotionally identified with the specimen.' Even then, an independent
analyst, while not potentially blinded by emotional attachment to a fossil, will
still have a particular set of preconceptions against which he will judge it. So
dispassionate it may be, but totally objective it can never be."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 26-27

Evolution quotes #46

"But [Earnest] Hooton identifies an even greater danger. This is 'the
psychological conflict in which the discoverer or describer is torn between his
desire to find primitive, unique, or anthropoidal features which will allow him
to place his specimen nearer to the apes than any previously recorded, and his
equally powerful urge to demonstrate the direct and central position of his new
type in the ancestry of modern man.'
When the former impulse is in the
ascendancy, says, Hooton, 'the author is likely to blow the dust off his Greek
and Latin dictionaries and perpetrate some horrid neologism in creating a new
zoological species, genus or even family, thereby committing simultaneously
mortal sins in both philology and taxonomy.' When the latter impulse succeeds,
the describer 'may seize upon metrically or morphologically insignificant
features common to both [modern man and the fossil under study] as evidence of
their genetic relationship.'
In other words, on the one hand you exaggerate
the difference between your fossil and modern humans, thus getting for yourself
a nice, ancient, discrete ancestor. And on the other, you overlook the
differences and exaggerate the similarities, thus setting your fossil on the
threshold of the noble Homo sapiens."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 26

Evolution quotes #45

"The individual lucky enough to have first access to a particular specimen is
therefore likely to 'leave no bone unturned in his effort to find new and
striking peculiarities which he can interpret functionally or genealogically,
Unless he is very experienced, he is prone to discover new features which are
partially the creations of his own concentrated imagination.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 26

Evolution quotes #44

"With the emotional elements of adventure, sacrifice and reward all compounded
in the discovery of a new fossil, together with the soul-stirring aspects of
ancestor worship, it might seem that the odds are heavily stacked against an
objective analysis by the individual who by custom has the right of first
pronouncement. Earnest Hooton, a prominent Harvard anthropologist of the 1930s
and '40s, recognized this trap as 'the psychology of the individual discoverer
and describer.' He wrote that 'The tendency towards aggrandizement of a rare or
unique specimen on the part of its finder or the person to whom its initial
scientific description has been entrusted, springs naturally from human egoism
and is almost ineradicable.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 25-26 citing Apes, Men and Morons, published by Putman, 1937, p. 112

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Question 15:

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ....”[13] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[14] If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?, creation.com/notscience (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

[13] Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976.

[14] Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

So, the famous Karl Popper admitted that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.”  A “metaphysical” program?

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online tells us metaphysical means “of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, supernatural.”

Evolutionists claim Biblical Creation cannot be taught in schools, regardless of whether or not it is true, because it does not rely on science, but upon the supernatural.  How is it a leading evolutionist of his time could admit evolution is NOT a testable scientific theory, thus making evolution NOT science, but is instead a metaphysical (reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, supernatural) program and evolutionists still claim evolution is science, and do so with a straight face and actually expect anyone to believe them?

How is it this admitted metaphysical theory about history, a religious idea and dogmatic belief system, is taught as science in science classes?

Eminent philosopher of science, Michael Ruse spelled this out even more clearly when he said, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

If religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools, and not allowed to be taught in science classes, then why is the religion of evolution (in evolutionist Michael Ruse’s own words) being taught in our science classes?  Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.

Related Articles:

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

15 Questions for Evolutionists

How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?

Evolution quotes #43

Michael Day anatomist, "Nine-tenths of your importance in this field comes from
your finds…There is a tremendous bias towards finders. And with this goes an
unwarranted weight on their opinions…I can easily be accused of sour grapes,"[1]
which he states because he is not a finder.

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 25 citing an interview with the author, London, 11 June 1985

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science?

Question #14:

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12  creation.com/notscience#distinction (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

_____________________________________

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html, 3 December, 2004.

______________________________________________________________

A question for the eminent Richard Dawkins, “Sir, if evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, then how can you say it has been observed at all?”

If evolution has been observed, but not while it was happening, then what was actually being observed? 

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?

DAWKINS: The consequences of... It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

It seems a detective such as Richard Dawkins would likely arrest, prosecute and jail the wrong person for the crime, and be rather proud of himself for doing so.  A massive clue?  How many massive clues does it take for Mr. Dawkins to state a lie to be true?

Clues:

1)  Abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature anywhere at any time.

2)  Life has always been observed to come from previously existing life absolutely 100% of the time.

3)  Natural selection “chooses” only the “most fit” traits to pass on, eliminating “weaker” traits and preserving “stronger more fit traits”.  Neither of these adds the new traits necessary for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal.  Natural selection is known to strengthen a given kind of animal, not cause it to become a new kind of animal as required by evolution. (i.e., the breeding of more fit dogs will still only produce a dog)

4)  Mutations corrupt and destroy the information in DNA, causing the organism to “devolve” not “evolve”.  Mutations cause the loss of information giving birth to a lesser animal that will be weeded out by natural selection; not the increase in information which would be necessary for the evolution of one kind of animal to evolve into a more complex, more fit, greater kind of animal.

5)  There are no examples of transitional forms ever existing in nature.  The only transitional forms believed to exist are in the imaginations of scientists and artists.  The massive lack of transitional forms is a clue testifying that evolution did not happen.

6)  By Mr. Dawkins’ own admission, evolution has never been observed while it is happening.  If you cannot observe something while it is happening, how do you know it ever happened?  You need irrefutable evidence before the event, observation and irrefutable evidence during the event, and irrefutable evidence after the event.

Mr. Dawkins, these clues are testable and confirmable, as required by science.  The evidence is against you and your belief in something, which according to your own statement, has never been witnessed to happen.

Evolution is indeed a theory about history.  Evolutionists claim evolution is science, even though evolution directly opposes actual, real, operational science.

Evolutionists:

1)  Where in nature can we observe any animal of any kind reproducing another kind of animal that is more than the original kind and not just a variation of the same kind of animal?  To observe this happening today would make it plausible that it happened in the past.

2)  Where in nature can we observe non-living chemicals evolving into living organisms?  To observe this happening today would make it a plausible explanation for believing it happened in the past.

3)  Science involves conducting experiments and observations to figure out how things operate.   If you cannot conduct experiments on or observe evolution while it is happening, how can it be science?

The belief in evolution is a belief about the history of the universe, from nothing to the “Big Bang” to gas clouds to stars and planets to elements to chemicals (still non-living) to the first living organism(s) to all life we see in existence today.  Evolutionists continually attempt to minimize and change their definition of evolution when part of the overall idea of evolution is shown to be false.  Continuous bait-and-switch changes of definitions continue to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the belief in evolution and its lack of scientific foundation.

Related Articles:

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’

Evolution quotes #42

"Richard [Leakey] ran an expedition and as joint leader and main operator of the
practical side he felt that he had a right to loyalty from the expedition
members. Inevitably that meant agreement with him on all important factors
associated with the expedition..if you did not agree on important issues you
could either back down or leave. Most of us backed down a few times and then
eventually left…Despite this, my own preference would be to work for an
expedition run by Richard."[1]
Donald Johanson, "acknowledges that the search
is often spiced by hopes that are not always strictly scientific. 'We have a
passion to find the oldest, the most complete, the biggest-brained, the most
enigmatic fossil,' he recently told an audience at a public lecture at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York.[2] Many anthropologists feel
like this, but few are candid enough to express it publicly."[3]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 250 citing a letter, Findlater to author, 1 Feb. 1985
[2]. "Four Million Years of Humanity," lecture at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, 9 April 1984
[3] Lewin, p. 23

Evolution quotes #41

"The character of the KBS Tuff controversy was in large part colored by the
combination of these two factors: Fitch and Miller's solid adherence to their
original figure, despite their inability to replicate it adequately; and
Leakey's unswerving loyalty to these two men and their contentions. Each party
had very good reasons for acting the way it did. In addition, Leakey clearly had
a vested interest in the older date, if for nothing else that because the claim
for the oldest Homo, oldest stone tools, and so on was good for
fund-raising."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 195

Evolution quotes #40

"An unfortunate tendency has developed of late," Bernard Campbell observed, "for
anthropologists who are mainly engaged in university teaching, rather than in
actual field studies, to start lengthy discussions and criticism on the basis of
preliminary reports, often without even viewing the original specimens, or casts
thereof. This sort of controversy, often accompanied by dogmatic pronouncements,
must be deplored."

Epilogue in Adam and Ape, edited by L. S. B. Leakey and Kack and Stephanie Prost, published by Schenkman Publishing Co., 1971

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Question 13:

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr. Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr. Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experi-mental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance  (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

Evolutionists claim evolution is science.  Good science leads to discoveries and inventions.  Can evolution lay claim to being responsible for any scientific breakthroughs?  Evolutionists claim evolution is at the center of biology.  It is true biology is at the center of medicine, but does evolution play any part in discoveries concerning medicine?  Does the hypothetical evolution of fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals actually have anything to do with how a human body operates and responds to medications today?  Does believing a dinosaur evolved into a bird advance the study of today’s molecular biologists understanding of operational microbiology?  How?

Evolutionist, and the 2005 chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Marc Kirschner  is quoted in the Boston Globe, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Tell me, how is it evolution has contributed to biology when such a learned evolutionist states as a matter of fact that almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution?  How can evolution be central to biology when Dr. Kirschner stated, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all”?

It is interesting that the only “biology” the esteemed Dr. Kirschner says evolution contributed to is evolutionary biology.  Basically, evolution only contributes to itself, and nothing else.  Is evolution really science?

As if this was not bad enough for evolution (and the adherents to evolution), Dr. Skell tells us not only that knowledge of evolution did not help in any advancement, but to the contrary, evolution actually hinders medical discovery.

So evolutionists, why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?  Why do evolutionists take legitimate discoveries from experimental and operational molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology and then deceitfully dress them up in evolutionary garb to deceive the public?

Where exactly are the breakthroughs brought about because of molecules-to-microbiologist evolution?  How is it that evolution is actually responsible for these breakthroughs you desire to claim?

9 As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

10 Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html.

11 E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back

Related Articles:

15 Questions for Evolutionists - Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

Does science need evolution?

Is evolution pseudoscience?

Evolution quotes #39

Regarding various descriptions of Ramapithecus' anatomy and habits:

"Here then, was a very complete picture of an animal-not just what it looked like, but also how it lived. And all based on a few fragments of upper and lower jaw and teeth…
'What we saw in the fossils was the small canines, and the rest followed, all linked together somehow. The Darwinian picture has a long tradition, and it was very powerful,'"[1]
"Pilbeam and Simmons managed to maintain their support of Ramapithecus [as a hominid], however, mainly by adjusting their lines of argument in concert with the shifting evidence,"[2]
"Pilbeam began to realize that the fossil material then available simply wasn't adequate to support the kinds of sweeping conclusions that had been made,"[3] "before the decade was out Rama's ape would be just that-an ape."[4]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 95 citing an interview with the author, Harvard University, 23 Oct. 1984
[2] Ibid., p. 98
[3] Ibid., p. 103
[4] Ibid., p. 98

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

Question #12:                                                                                  

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8  creation.com/sexstories (Sourced from the 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

Story-telling, a main accusation many evolutionists use as a claimed reason to not believe the Bible, but dismiss it as an unreliable religious text – just a bunch of stories meant to persuade or cause people to behave in a certain manner, has become the stock-in-trade of evolutionists.  Evolutionists claim the Bible to be filled with stories on the same level of mythology as the Greek gods of Olympus, or the Egyptian gods, or even fairy tales.

Yet, when it comes to explaining exactly how any step of hypothetical evolution occurred, the evolutionist has no actual evidence that can be experimentally tested and repeated, but must rely upon stories that happened “just-so”; not because they were witnessed, are repeatable or confirmable, but because they absolutely must have happened “just-so” for their faith in the hypothetical series of occurrences to have continued from nothing-to-the uninhabited universe with chemicals-to all living things as we know them today.

Case in point, the hypothetical evolution of non-living chemicals into the first “living” cell.

For goo-to-you evolution to have occurred, non-living chemicals (against all scientific fact, experimentation and observation) had to evolve into the first self-reproducing living cell.  In other words, evolution (molecules-to-microbiologists) had to violate science in order for evolution (pond scum-to-people) occur and become a “known scientific fact”.

Evolutionists will claim that given enough time, and just the right chemical mix, and just the right conditions and just the right timing, nature can violate the law of biogenesis; you know, the scientific law that states every living thing in nature came from a prior, already existing, living thing.

At this point the evolutionist has one of two choices: 1) claim that biogenesis is not a law, or 2) claim that abiogenesis obviously happened at least once because we are here.

A police officer clocks you going 85 mph in a 55 mph zone, where 55 mph is the clearly and obviously posted speed limit.  When you go to court, will you be able to claim the law does not limit you to a legal maximum speed of 55 mph?  Sure, you could claim that all day long, however, every time you go back to the scene of your crime, you will see the sign “SPEED LIMIT 55” clearly posted, according to the traffic laws of the jurisdiction you were speeding in.  Claim the 55 mph speed limit is not a law all you like, you will still be wrong, and still be guilty of lying and of speeding.

 Just the same way, every time you see a new life, or a new living organism, come into being, it is as a result of reproduction from an already existing living organism.  The scientific law of biogenesis is a law because it has NEVER been witnessed to have been violated.  Some evolutionists try to prove this wrong in a laboratory, however they forget, their experiments are actually proving the absolute need for an Intelligent Designer to gather the necessary materials and arrange them in a specifically designed order, creating all the working pieces necessary, and making all the pieces properly work together.  In the laboratory, the intelligent designer is the scientist manipulating the experiment according to his will.

 So, now we are left with the “just-so” story of abiogenesis, an unproven, unscientific, unobserved hypothesis that must have happened “just-so” in violation of science and the laws of science or else goo-to-you evolution could never have happened.  So amazing is this “just-so” never witnessed and never repeated story that non-living chemicals were able to assemble the over 200 parts necessary for a single cell to survive and reproduce with no instructions for operation or cooperation of the parts that were being “evolved”, and no instructions for their assembly, and no instructions for the parts that were actually needed or that parts were indeed needed in the first place.  The tiny little non-living chemicals just kept on trying over, and over, and over for millions, possibly billions of years until they got it right and had a huge honking party to celebrate their success!

Really?  Evolutionists claim this is science.  Even the existence of a Tooth Fairy is more plausible.  But you know, evolutionists will tell you it is an absolutely undisputable fact of science, evolution happened...“just-so”.

_____________________________

8 Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005.

Evolution quotes #38

"Some people even admitted that they were giving their fossil a new genus and species name so as to call attention to how important they thought it was. Everyone who had a fossil come into their hands for description wanted it to be something new-perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously-for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 91 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

related resources:
The rise and fall of Skull 1470
Homo erectus 'to' modern man
15 questions responses 2

Evolution quotes #37

Ales Hrdlicka is the founder of the American Society of Physical Anthropology and for many years was the editor of the society's journal, "from which positioned wielded substantial power over what was acceptable to the establishment and what was not…Hrdlicka, he [G. Edward Lewis] says, 'thought he was the anointed and elect prophet who had been foreordained and chosen to make such discoveries and demolish the work of anyone else.'"[1] Lewis had interpreted Ramapithecus as a hominid but Hrdlicka believed it to be just an ape and so he "tore into Lewis's work,"[2] although "Hrdlicka's paper was somewhat self-contradictory, and, says Simmons, 'scattered with blunders and naïvete that a really good professional simply would not have made.'"[3]

"Even a causal examination of this paper is sufficient to show that it bears all the evidence of being a controversial and non-objective contribution,"[4] "amateurish,"[5] "It looked to me like someone coming into something he didn't know much about, with preconceived ideas."[6] Lewis wrote a rebuttal to Hrdlicka's criticism's of his work but the editors of the American Journal of Science refused to publish it, "because they said Hrdlicka was an important man, and I was a young man."[7]

Hrdlicka had attempted to discredit Lewis' position based on the evolutionary concepts of the time whereby "To have the first hominids appearing in the eastern part of the Old World was therefore simply unacceptable. 'So he did a hatchet job on Lewis' work,'[8] says Spencer." Lewis had discovered Ramapithecus but not long after this clash with the authority of the time he "left Yale and never really made another important contribution to paleoanthropology."[9]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[2] Ibid., p. 88

[3] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[4] "The Phyletic Position of Ramapithecus," Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum, p. 374 (1961)

[5] "A Source for Dental Comparison of Ramapithecus with Australopithecus and Homo," in South African Journal of Science, Feb. 1968, p. 97

[6] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[7] Ibid., p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[8] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, New York, 13 Dec. 1985

[9] Ibid., p. 89

related resources:

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
 
Finding the real 'missing link'

The Piltdown Man Fraud