Page 796 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

logical sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be
most "unscientific", are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense"-and finally
"human evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like ex-
trasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible -
and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. 101
Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important publication on the origins of man, writes in

that journal, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light", quoting the confession of the famous
evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim White:
We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer." 102
Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the origins of man and the groundlessness

of the propaganda spread about this subject:
Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree
over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to
wither and die in the face of new fossil finds. 103

The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal Nature. In his
book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "be-
tween about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a
small box." He concludes that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a

completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices" and adds:
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but
an assertion that carries the same validity as bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scien-
tific. 104
What, then, is the reason that makes so many scientists so tenacious about this

dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep their theory alive, at the
cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the evi-
dence they have found?

The only answer is their being afraid of the fact they will have
to face in case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact they
will have to face when they abandon evolution is that God has cre-
ated man. However, considering the presuppositions they have and the
materialistic philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept

for evolutionists.
For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well as the world, by using the
media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find the necessary fossils, they "fabri-

cate" them either in the form of imaginary pictures or fictitious models and try to give
the impression that there indeed exist fossils verifying evolution. A part of mass media
who share their materialistic point of view also try to deceive the public and instil the
story of evolution in people's subconscious.
No matter how hard they try, the truth is evident:
FALSE ary process but by God's creation. Therefore, he is re-
Man has come into existence not through an evolution-

sponsible to Him.

The myth of human evolution is based on no scien-
tific findings whatsoever. Representations such as
this have no other significance than reflecting evolu-
tionists' imaginative wishful thinking.

794 Atlas of Creation