Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. IV
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
It’s July in 1925 in a normally quiet town called Dayton, Tennessee. This is southern America, recently ravaged by both the War Between the States, and the Great War. This is the south at a time when women have legally been permitted to cast a vote for less than five years even though, after terrible wars, women outnumber eligible bachelors by nearly three to one. This is Tennessee in the time of temperance; the land famous for “Lynchburg Lemonade” during the Noble Experiment of prohibition. It is a south where segregation is the common practice even though not yet a codified legal practice.
Into this mix of social imbalance, a new debate hotly rages and the echoed shouts and epithets inherit the wind. The fireworks of the Fourth are dim echoes to the fireworks surrounding Dayton that summer. And in the heart of that normally sleepy county seat, the trail of the century is raging in the crowded courthouse.The southern summer broils with humid southern air one could almost wear. The courtroom is packed mostly with ladies — homemakers and shopkeepers and Sherrif’s Deputies and southern belles and debutantes and Sunday School teachers — fanning themselves in their sundresses and tisking their tongues and shaking their heads. For the prosecution, William Jennings Bryan has cited case after case, precedent after precedent, article after article of law — referring to the constitution of the great state of Tennessee and the nation, as well as conclusions set forth by such notables as the very first Supreme Court Justice.
Then, the infamous Clarence Darrow rises slowly to his feet like a gladiator facing his emporer. A tall and muscular man, he literally towers over his slender client, a somewhat nerdy little milquetoast school teacher who wears a bowtie when men simply no longer wear bowties, and affects rounded wire-frame spectacles that make his eyes look just plain enormous, approximately the size of his protruding Adam’s apple, behind the lenses. Scopes looks more like an albino amphibian than a man. He looks clammy and sickly. He looks every inch the wrongfully persecuted underdog — just as Darrow intended.
This is the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. It is a name that is both ironic and somewhat prescient because there was certainly some monkey business afoot in Dayton that summer.
Clarence Darrow affects a somewhat constipated look. He shakes his head as if pitying the sad ignorance of the prosecution. When he speaks, his trained voice, bass and rich and with perfect elocution, takes on a gentle timbre, as if he is on the very verge of bursting into a song, or possibly a sermon. For the record, he says, “We have only to look to the cavemen to know that man evolved from apes.”
Darrow refers back to the previous testimony of Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist who had recently and openly ridiculed William Jennings Bryan in the press, declaring that the miraculous Nebraska Man fossil find was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” and that it spoke “volumes of truth” about man’s evolutionary origin from apes. These barbs were particularly pointed since Bryan was originally from Nebraska. The jury and everyone in the gallery “gets” this reference. This is Tennessee in 1925. There are no televisions. All news is absorbed from newspapers and nearly everyone reads the papers. They even read the special “Extra!” editions that are routinely printed during the course of the trail.
In the courtroom, and for the record, Darrow vaguely cites the Neanderthal, Nebraska Man, and the indisputable Java Man.
Neanderthal, Java Man, Nebraska Man — and to that list we can add Piltdown Man, Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man, Taung African Man, Peking Man, Flipperpithecus, Orce Man, Nutcracker Man, Skull 1470, and Lucy the magic Australopithecine.
All are or were cited as “evidence” that man descended from monkeys and all of them bear one thing in common — FRAUD.
You read that correctly. The astonishing truth is that there is absolutely no real evidence that man descended from monkeys. Has anyone ever told you that? Every single one of these famous missing links and/or so called early apemen rely on outright fraud, deliberate misdirection, or baseless assumption at best. Think I am dead wrong? Then I challenge you to read on.
Nebraska was rather dull in 1922. One could look forward to days of the cattle lowing, the corntops blowing, and the smell of an aweful lot of manure.
In March 1922, rancher and layman hobby geologist Harold Cook allegedly submitted a single tooth to world traveler Henry Fairfield Osborn, then President of the American Museum of Natural History, stating that it might well be the first ever discovered caveman tooth in North America. Supposedly, Cook had stumbled upon the tooth in the dirt of his northwestern Nebraska ranch five years earlier in 1917 and only recently and very suddenly realized its scientific importance.
Osborn allegedly received the tooth on March 14, 1922. In a letter to Cook, he wrote, “I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: ‘It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid’.” Just one month later, Osborn announced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the “first anthropoid apeman from America.”
And that tooth, that amazing magical tooth, was named “Nebraska Man!”
Based on that one tooth, artist Amedee Forestier was commissioned by the Illustrated London News and instructed to create his “impression” of what the prehistoric figure whose jaw originally held this tooth must have looked like. He did so. In fact, he created, from just one single tooth, a picture of “Nebraska Cave MAN” and “Nebraska Cave WOMAN” and even some “Nebraska Cave CHILDREN.” Dear readers, that is dental forensics on a scale that modern orthodontists can only dream of one day achieving!
That Nebraska Tooth Fairy portrait circled the world. Everyone who saw it was amazed. Grafton Elliot Smith, one of the principles involved in publicizing “Nebraska Man” was even knighted by the King of England for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, 1922)
The tooth became known at that time as the “Apeman of the Western World.” Darwinist revisionists have since shortened this description to “Ape of the Western World” in an attempt to also minimize the depth of the attempted fraud. Smith made casts of the tooth and sent them to 26 institutions of higher learning throughout America and Europe along with a “scientific” paper about the so-called primate tooth and, interestingly, he also included reproductions of the Forestier drawing.
Nebraska Man’s picture, and his family portraits, were even referred to in an apocryphal way as evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Henry F. Osborn declared that the Nebraska Man tooth was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” speaking “volumes of truth” (H. F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103). At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after long and careful study, the Nebraska Man tooth was “definitely” from a species “closer to man than to the ape” (Science 55, May 5, 1922, p. 464).
All that from just ONE tooth. Amazing. Unbelievable. Incredible, even.
“… I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), …Until we secure more of the dentition [than this single tooth], or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae.”
Turns out the tooth belonged to a dead PIG.
For many years after the Nebraska Man pig-tooth fraud was fully uncovered in 1928, Darwinists continued to claim that — even though it wasn’t a so-called “primate” tooth — it was still a tooth from an “extinct prehistoric pig” which must have evolved into modern pigs.
In 1972, living pigs of the very same species were identified, alive and well, in Paraguay. You know. In South America. Paraguay. Where Sir Grafton Elliot Smith just happened to have recently visited before finding himself surrounded by corn, and cattle, and manure in the heartland of these United States.
Keep the beknighted name of Sir Grafton Elliot Smith in mind in the coming weeks. You’ll be amazed where that name might pop up again.
Fabricating an entire family of “cave people” from a single tooth? Claiming a pig tooth was from men, or from apes, or some other primate instead of a pig? Claiming the pig who originally owned the tooth was from a long extinct species of pig?
Fraud. Covered up by lies and followed up by more FRAUD.
Modern Darwinists do their best to minimize this episode in the fraudulent past of the evolution argument, but their arguments ring hollow in the face of the facts.
The truth is that we are all one blood, all nations of men. We were placed here not as a mathematically impossible random act, but as an act of will. We serve a purpose. We are not animals. Our ancestors were not animals. As the Psalmist said, we are one step below Elohim. Created beings possessing of minds and emotions and eternal spirits.
If Darwinists were so obviously right, why all the Pious Fraud? Why ANY fraud at all? Why not let facts lead to unavoidable conclusions? Why add lies, misdirection, obfuscation, mendacity, fraud, and fabrication to the argument? Why is that necessary? What is the meaning of that? What do you suppose the intent, is?
God Bless you and yours.