Page 689 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

F FA AL LS SE E

F F FA AL LS SE E Reconstruction drawings reflect only evolu-

tionists' imaginations, not scientific discov-
eries.

had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This
tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began sur-

rounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man," in which some interpreted this tooth as belong-
ing to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also
immediately given a "scientific name," Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's
head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as
a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this
"imaginary man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a
single tooth, he was harshly criticized.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth
belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American

pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the
truth, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man." 199 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus harold-
cooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

Conclusion

All the scientific deceptions and prejudiced evaluations made to support the theory of evolution show that
the theory is a kind of ideology, and not at all a scientific account. Like all ideologies, this one too has its fanat-
ical supporters, who are desperate to prove evolution, at no matter what cost. Or else they are so dogmatically
bound to the theory that every new discovery is perceived as a great proof of the theory, even if it has nothing
to do with evolution. This is really a very distressing picture for science, because it shows that science is being

misdirected in the name of a dogma.
In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup has this to say on the
subject:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false
theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a pe-
culiar "Darwinian" vocabulary—"adaptation," "selection pressure," "natural selection," etc.—thereby believing that
they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be

ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. 200

Further proof that Darwinism is the greatest deception in the history of science is provided by molecular
biology.

Adnan Oktar 687