Page 646 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Confuciusornis,
which lived at
the same time as
Archaeopteryx,
has many simi-
larities to birds
of today.

A representation of
Confuciusornis

bird and dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, the author of the article, went so far
as to claim, "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals."
This species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given the scientific name
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. 111
However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of re-

searchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-
ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese
amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that
Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included
bones from four different specimens.
The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-profile article about such a crude

forgery—and, moreover, used it as the basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified—
without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs Olson, of the famous Smithsonian
Institute Natural History Museum in the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that
this fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him. According to Olson, "National

Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." 112
In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olson describes the real story of the "feathered di-
nosaur" hype since its launch with a previous National Geographic article published in 1998 in a very detailed
way:

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou
Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his pho-

tographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject
the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present,
but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the pre-
vailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocu-
mented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that
birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting

the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagan-

644 Atlas of Creation Vol. 2