Page 494 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Until shown to be a forgery, Piltdown Man was exhibited in
museums and adorned the covers of "scientific" publications

for 40 years.

[It is a] . . . myth that the evolutionary histories of living
things are essentially a matter of discovery. . . . But if

this were really so, one could confidently expect that
as more hominid fossils were found the story of
human evolution would become clearer. Whereas
if anything, the opposite has occurred. 30

In his 1995 article, one of the well-known
names in the theory of evolution, Harvard University

professor Richard Lewontin, admits that Darwinism has fallen into
a hopeless situation:

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a frag-
mentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some
paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. 31

Many other evolutionist experts in this matter recently stated their pessimism about their theory. Henry

Gee, for example, editor of the well-known magazine Nature, points out:

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 a bedtime story—-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not sci-
entific. 32

The classic "human family tree" is being seriously criticized today. Scientists investigating the evidence
without preconceptions assert that the line of descent from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens that evolution-

ists put forth is a total concoction, and the in-between species called Homo habilis and Homo erectus are imag-
inary.
In a 1999 article published in Science magazine, evolutionist paleontologists Bernard Wood and Mark

492 Atlas of Creation Vol. 3