Page 495 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

Collard present their view that the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis

are concocted categories and that fossils included in these cate-
gories should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus. 33

Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and the
University of Canberra's Alan Thorne share the opinion that H.
erectus is a fabricated category and fossils included in this classi-
fication are all variations of H. sapiens. 34
This means that the fossils that evolutionists suggest repre-

sent the supposed evolutionary forebears of man belong either
to extinct species of ape or else to human beings with different
racial characteristics. None of these are half-human and half-
There is in fact no "evolutionary line" from ape
ape; they are either ape or human. to man, and such a thing cannot be constructed
According to some experts who acknowledge this reality, the on even the theoretical level.
myth of human evolution is nothing more than creative writing by a group of individuals who believe in
materialist philosophy and represent natural history in terms of their own dogmatic ideas. At a meeting
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford historian John Durant commented on

the matter:

Could it be that, like "primitive" myths, theories of
human evolution reinforce the value-systems of
their creators by reflecting historically their image of
themselves and of the society in which they live? 35

In a later publication, Durant says that it is

worth asking whether ideas of so-called
human evolution assumed similar func-
tions both in pre-scientific and scientific
societies, and goes on to say:

. . . Time and again, ideas about

human origins turn out on closer
examination to tell us as much
about the present as about
the past, as much about

our own experiences as
about those of our remote
Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, two well-known paleontologists who ogisation of science. 36
ancestors. . . [W]e are in ur-
admit the discrepancy between Darwinism and the fossil record
gent need of the de-mythol-

In short, theories about human origins do nothing else than reflect

the prejudices and philosophical beliefs of their authors. Another evolutionist who accepts this is
Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark, who wrote in a 1997 publication:

. . . paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science . . . We select among alternative sets of
research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions—a process that is, at once, both polit-

ical and subjective. 37

Inside Media Propaganda

As you see, claims about human evolution have been found to be baseless, even by those who played

personal roles in their elaboration. The claims are not founded on science, but on the belief and prejudice

Adnan Oktar 493