What follows is an excellent debunking of NBC and BC Video's "Mysterious 
Origins of Man".
It was written by Frank Steiger and posted to the talk.origins
newsgroup.

--------BEGIN INCLUDED ARTICLE--------

Path: xmission!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!peterg!frank.steiger
From: frank.steiger@solar.org (Frank Steiger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: NBC "Origins" program
Date: Fri,  8 Mar 1996 22:55:00 GMT
Message-ID: <9603081700099644@solar.org>
Organization: The Solar System BBS, Mission Viejo, CA 714-837-9677
Distribution: world
Lines: 97        

  To: Bill Cote, Carol Cote and John Cheshire, Producers of The
      Mysterious Origins of Man

To follow the controversy on our World Wide Web site:
http://www.bcvideo.com/bcvideo

On February 25, 1996 NBC aired The Mysterious Origins of Man. The
following is a list of claims made by the program, followed by my
rebuttal:

   In their search for answers about man's origins, scientists gather
   evidence based on what they observe.  But sometimes evidence turns up
   that completely contradicts their accepted theories.

Please read the following general comment on the program:

On February 25, 1996 NBC aired a program, "The Mysterious Origins of
Man," narrated by Charlton Heston. The conclusion of the program is that
the scientific community processes information through a "knowledge
filter" that screens out data that doesn't fit its preconceived ideas.

In fact, it's just the other way around. The statements in this video do
not stand up to critical examination, and in most cases consist of old
arguments that have been repeatedly and conclusively refuted as far back
as 1984 and earlier. There is a great deal of contradictory information
that could have been presented by scientists intimately familiar with
these hoaxes. This information was not presented because it would have
destroyed the goal of the program: to attack science. The program was
nothing more than a one-sided propaganda video with strong overtones of
religious fundamentalism masquerading as science.

The idea was continually stressed that scientists were unable to explain
these findings, but no opportunity was given to legitimate scientists to
provide any alternative explanations!

The following comment and analysis is submitted to provide the
information filtered out by the producers of this video. Permission is
given to reproduce this post, in whole or in part, with no restrictions.

Executive Producers: Michael Gerber, Robert Watts
Produced by:    John Cheshire, Bill Cote, Carol Cote
Directed by:    Bill Cote
Writers:        John Cheshire, Bill Cote
Sponsored by DC Video Inc., and the National Broadcasting Company.

Statements by the following persons:
        Michael Cremo, Richard Thompson, authors "Forbidden Archeology"
        Virginia Steen McIntyre, anthropologist
        Rev. Carl Baugh, fundamentalist minister
        Dale Peterson, MD
        Don Patton, geologist
        David Hatcher Childress, author/researcher
        Richard Milton, author "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"
        Niel Steele, meso-American archeologist
        Osvaldo Rivera, archaeologist
        Graham Hancock, author "Fingerprints of the Gods"
        John Anthony West, independent Egyptologist
        Robert Bouval, author "Orion Mystery"
        Charles Hapgood
        Rand Flem-Ath, co-author, "When the Sky Fell"

The above individuals are claimed to represent a "new breed" of
scientific investigators. When their statements are subjected to
critical examination, however, it becomes evident that their ideas are
neither new nor scientific, as we shall see.

The program did not reveal that Don Patton has strong ties to the
creationist movement. (For example, he appeared on Trinity Broadcasting
Network's "Bible Prophesy" program of March 3, 1996, preaching
creationist propaganda.)  It also did not reveal that Carl Baugh is a
fundamentalist minister with very little knowledge of geology,

Heston stated that stone tools were "reportedly" found in Table Mountain
in California in 55 million year old strata. This discovery was reported
in detail in the fall, 1981 issue of Creation/Evolution: conclusive
evidence was presented to show that the tools were planted by a local
shopkeeper and in fact resembled modern, not ancient, artifacts. Yet the
claim was made that the conclusion of an age of 55 million years
for these tools "seems to have been well documented."

Heston reported that conventional theory holds that early man originated
in Africa about 100,000 years ago, migrated into Asia about 40,000 years
ago, and into North America between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. The
statement was made that "numerous artifacts" have been found that
threaten to "completely overturn" this theory. He claimed that this data
has been suppressed by "conventional" scientists. He cited the
experience of Virginia McIntyre as an example, claiming that she was
"silenced at the height of her career because of her determination to
report the facts."

Virginia Steen McIntyre found a spear point in New Mexico strata dated
at 250,000 years. She concluded that the point itself was made at that
time. Heston stated that a "team of experts" from the U. S. Geological
Survey was called in to date "them" in 1966. However it appears that
the team dated the site, not the spear point. No evidence was presented
to prove that the spear point (arrowhead?) was not merely an artifact
dropped there by a modern Indian. However, Heston claimed a massive
cover up conspiracy, stating that the "site was closed and permission
for further investigation denied forever."

Carl Baugh, described in the video as an archaeologist, but actually a
fundamentalist minister, presented "evidence" purporting to show that
fossilized human footprints were found alongside those of dinosaurs in
the cretaceous limestone formations in and near the Paluxy River in Glen
Rose, Texas.  None of the in situ prints shown displayed any toe marks.
Claims that these "footprints" were human have been subjected to
detailed and lengthy investigations by numerous scientists and have been
found to be entirely without foundation. It would take at least a dozen
pages and a half dozen diagrams to report the details, but the
information can be found in the following references: Issue VI (fall,
1981) and Issue XV of Creation\Evolution; Strahler: "Science and Earth
History", pp 462-470. Suffice it to say that the only "prints" that show
toes are fakes that don't resemble actual human footprints, and which
have been obviously carved, with elongated toes and proportions
inconsistent with genuine human footprints. In many cases Baugh made
casts of "prints" in which mud was left in the stone depression, thus
creating a false impression. I strongly urge reader to peruse the above
references before taking Rev. Baugh's claims seriously!

Even leading creationists have backed off from endorsing Baugh's
"footprints" as genuine. Baugh's film, "Footprints in Stone" shows a
"heel" print with a big claw mark behind it. The obvious conclusion that
it's the toe of a dinosaur going the other way is not even considered.
Also in the film "Footprints in Stone" a creationist is shown doing a
hop, skip, and jump from one "print" to another, an unlikely means of
locomotion and something that could not have been done in the soft mud
existing at the time the prints were made!

Local Glen Rose residents have created a cottage industry of carving
"human" foot prints for sale to tourists. The "fossilized track"
displayed in this video is very similar to these carved footprints, as
are the those shown in photos on pp. 174-175 of "The Genesis Flood," by
Whitcomb and Morris.

The fake footprint had been sectioned, and "load bearing structures" in
the cross section were pointed out by Dale Patterson and Don Patton.
However, the claim that mud would form "load bearing structures" when
walked upon has to be met with considerable skepticism.

Many scientists, such as Laurie Godfrey, John Cole, R. J. Hastings, J. D.
Schafersman, Jim Farlow, and Glen Kuban have conducted exhaustive and
detailed on site investigations of the Paluxy formation, yet their work
was not even mentioned. This is strongly indicative of a massive cover
up by the producers of this program.  Al West, a Baugh co-worker for two
years, told reporters (Potter, 1984; UPI, 1984) that Baugh's prints were
"totally contrived in his imagination." West noted that he had seen some
plaster casts, which, when they were transformed into fiberglass casts,
were made to look more human in the process.

Fossilization preserves only hard parts, like bones, shells, and wood.
The fleshy parts of an animal are never preserved as fossils, although
a mold or imprint of soft parts are sometimes fossilized. The video
displayed what is claimed to be a fossilized finger, whole and complete.
A cat scan was shown of the "finger," revealing what appeared to be a
core with two dark patches in locations roughly corresponding to the
finger joints. It was claimed that these shadows corresponded to the
bones of the finger. It was also claimed that the cat scan revealed the
ligaments of the finger, although they could not be seen by the viewer.
The "finger" had been diagonally sectioned, and would have presumably
revealed these structures if they were present. However,the section was
never revealed; the two pieces were always held tightly together.

Some grooved metallic spheres, collected in South Africa from 2.8
billion year old strata were displayed, with the interpretation that
they must have been made by human beings, and therefore humans might
have been in existence 2.8 billion years ago. However, no conclusive
evidence was presented to show that either these objects must
necessarily be human artifacts, or that they were necessarily occluded
in the the ancient strata at the time it was formed.

David Hatcher Childress, described as an "author researcher," claimed
that the geologic time scale had been compressed by cataclysmic events
so that what appears to have taken place over millions of years actually
occurred over the last several thousand years. Of course, this claim is
contradicted by the detailed historical records of the ancient Egyptians
and others, which go back 5000 years.

Childress also claimed that dinosaurs are still alive today. As an
example a photograph of the badly decomposed body of a marine animal
hauled in by a Japanese fishing vessel was shown. It was never proven to
be a plesiosaur, as claimed. But Heston reversed the burden of proof by
stating: "Although its authenticity has never been disproven, skeptics
claim that it's merely the body of a decomposing shark." Charlton
Heston is a very accomplished actor, and has the ability, by gesture and
facial expression, to make make even the most flimsy "evidence" sound
convincing. That, of course, is why they hired him.

With respect to "Lucy," the hominid skeleton discovered by Donald
Johanson, Richard Milton and Michael Cremo made the statements that it
is "hardly distinguishable from an ape or monkey," and that it is
"merely an extinct ape."  These statements are entirely at odds with the
appearance of the skeleton and the evidence presented in Dr. Johanson's
book. Photographs of the skulls of ancient hominids like
Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus show very clearly that they are
intermediate between apes and humans.

Richard Thompson stated that the "Java Man," fossil remains, discovered
in 1892, was a hoax that was covered up and ignored until 1984. This
statement is based on claims made by Duane Gish, chief propagandist for
the Institute for Creation Research, a biblical fundamentalist
organization. It is based on distortions of the factual record. A
complete chronology can be found in pp. 489-490 of "Science and Earth
History," by Arthur N. Strahler.

Heston stated: "So far conclusive evidence of a missing link has not
been found" and "there is little support for man's connection to the
apes."  This statement is a complete falsehood. The numerous fossil
skulls of Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus, and Neanderthal hominids
provide conclusive evidence that that the missing link(s) *has* been
found.

Niel Steele made the statement that "astronomical evidence" shows that
Tiahuanaco, an ancient city in the Bolivian Andes, is 12,000 years old.
This conclusion was based on the claim that the inclination of the axis
of the earth's rotation undergoes a periodic change of significant
magnitude over a period of 41,000 years. This statement is a complete
falsehood. The earth's axis does have a slight wobble, less than 2/1000
of a degree, that takes place a period of about a year, and the axis
precesses, pointing to different stars over a period of 26,000 years.
But the *angle* of the earth's axis to the plane of its revolution
around the sun does *not* change. The claim is made that because the sun
rises (or sets) at the summer and winter solstices beyond the the corner
markers of a Tiahuanaco gateway complex aligned in a true east-west
direction, at some time in the remote past the rising (or setting) must
been in conjunction with the corner markers of the gateway structure.
What is not mentioned is the fact that the observed position of the sun
relative to the corner markers depends on the position of the observer;
by merely moving closer to the gateway, an observer would observe a
perfect conjunction with present day solstices. Mr. Steele assumed that
the observer would necessarily be positioned behind a V-shaped trough
which aligned with the equinox gateway along an east-west direction.
There is no justification for that assumption; as a matter of fact, an
observer looking through the trough "gunsight" would not be able to see
the corner posts!

The narrative does not make clear whether or not Mr. Steele took into
account the latitude of Tiahuanaco in measuring the angle to the corner
posts. However, the diagram indicates that he did *not* take this into
account. The diagram shows the sun's motion as perpendicular to the
horizon; this is only true at the equator (ignoring the slight angle
due to the earth's revolution around the sun). At any other latitude the
path will at an angle to the perpendicular equal to the latitude, and
the angle along the horizon must be corrected by dividing the earth's
rotation axis inclination angle of 23.5 degrees by the cosine of the
latitude. The diagram shows the axis inclination angle measured
horizontally, and not at an angle corresponding to the latitude. Since
Tiahuanaco is located at 17 degrees south latitude (just west of La
Paz), the angle along the horizon subtended by the end posts must be
equal to 23.5/(cos 17 deg) = 24.6 degrees. Since at the "gunsight"
location the end posts subtend only 23 degrees, the distance from the
observer to the equinox gate must be shorter by a factor equal to (tan
23 deg)/(tan 24.6 deg) = .926.  The fact that there may not be a marker
at this location proves nothing, since much of the more easily removed
structures have been carried away by the natives for use in more recent
construction.

Radiocarbon dating (much maligned but never disproven by religious
fundamentalists) shows that the civilization that constructed Tiahuanaco
existed from about 500 to 1000 AD. This civilization was skilled in
metal working, smelting copper and tin from local mines and producing
coper and bronze implements, in addition to gold artifacts.

Metal staples were discovered holding the large stone blocks of the
structure together. The assumption was made that this indicated that
some advanced civilization existing in the remote past (presumeably
12,000 years ago) had the ability to work with metals that natives
living in the past 2000 years lacked.

At this point the reader may well ask why the producers went to such
extremes to make a case that had so little merit? The answer is clear:
the object was not to pursue genuine scientific inquiry, but instead to
try to discredit legitimate science and replaced it with unsubstantiated
dogma.

John Anthony West stated that "geological evidence" showed that the
sphinx could be 12,000 years old, but did not present any data to verify
his claim. Robert Bouval stated that "astronomical evidence" and a
computer model of the Giza plateau show that the sphinx was constructed
around 10,5000 BC. No explanation of how he came to that conclusion was
given, other than an assumed relationship between the appearance of the
sphinx and the position of the constellation of Leo.


A detailed written record of the history of Egypt goes back to 3100 BC.
500 years later, around 2600 BC, Khufu and his successors constructed
the great pyramids and sphinx at Gizeh. Are we to throw all this
recorded history in the trash dumpster and replace it with a crackpot
theory that the sphinx is somehow related to some constellation as it
appeared 12,000 years ago?

The claim was made that a 1513 Turkish map shows the coastlines of
Africa and South America with an accuracy of 1/2 degree of longitude.
This was taken as further "evidence" that an "advanced" civilization
(presumeably the same bunch that constructed the Sphinx, Tiahuanaco, and
the great pyramids 12,000 years ago) accurately mapped the entire globe.
The map was not shown, other than a brief glimpse of something that did
not even remotely resemble either Africa or South America.

Charles Hapgood displayed a 1532 Aronteus Phineas map showing the
mythical continent of Atlantis in the center of the Atlantic Ocean.
Based on the fact that the Atlantis "continent" had a superficial
resemblance to Antarctica, the conclusion was made that Antarctica must be
the lost continent of Atlantis.

Rand Flem-Ath and Charles Hapgood touted the theory that around 12,000
years ago the entire outer crust of the earth moved 2000 miles, moving
temperate areas into polar regions. Their only evidence presented was
that a wooly mammoth carcass found frozen in polar ice had the remains of
buttercups in its stomach. The possibility the animal had lived at the
edge of an advancing icecap, had died, was preserved by cold conditions
and later covered by snow and the advancing icecap was not even
considered.

Hapgood and Flem-Ath touted an idea so ignorant and ridiculous as to be
bizarre. They claimed that gravity pulled the northern ice cap in a
southerly direction, taking the earth's crust with it. Their diagram
shows north as "up," and south as "down"! According to their diagram,
persons living below the equator would fall off the earth. They also
claimed that the weight of the northern ice cap being pulled south
("down") pulled the entire crust of the earth, en masse, to a new
position where polar regions became temperate, and temperate regions,
such as Atlantis, became polar.

This entire production was an absolute travesty; it attacked reason and
knowledge with outrageous lies and distortions. The show's producers aim
was to disseminate falsehood without the responsibility of having to
defend it; that is why the script continually uses phrases like
"compelling evidence suggest to some."

I would not suggest censorship, but when this kind of garbage is
disseminated over the public airways by large and powerful propaganda
organizations, the airways should be required to reinstate the fairness
doctrine so the public can at least hear the other side of the story.


   Documented cases of human bones and artifacts discovered demonstrate
   that man could be millions of years older than the theory of
   evolution accepts.

You said nothing in the program about HUMAN bones being millions of
years older than indicated by the theory of evolution. Care to submit
bona fide evidence (not just the opinion of an anti-evolutionist)? If
you have solid evidence to date any artifact described in the program,
what is it? It's up to the anti-evolutionists to demonstrate that the
artifact not just something dropped on the ground or left in a cave or
buried with a dead Indian or simply planted as a hoax. Instead, the
program ignores these possibilities with the cop out that the "evidence
seems to have been well documented." The program was very evasive about
the dating of Dr. McIntyre's spear point. As near as I can tell, the
strata was dated, but the artifact was not. In order for the artifact to
be dated, it must be shown that it had to be occluded in the formation
*at the time it was formed.* The program did not do this!

   Astronomical alignments found in the ancient city of Tiahuanaco,
   in Bolivia, suggests that technological man could be thousands of
   years older than history tells us.

No, astronomical alignments do not say this; read the above comment.

   Geological dating methods suggest that modern man was in the New
   World 250,000 years ago.

Only if you can establish a correlation between the artifact and the age
of the formation. If I find a hubcap buried in cretaceous sand does that
mean Fords existed millions of years age? I don't think so.

   Accurate details in ancient maps suggest the continent of Antarctica
   was known and mapped before the time of Alexander the Great.

The resemblance was superficial; there were no accurate details. In
order to evaluate this possibility, *all* the evidence should be
considered. A superficial resemblance to the map of Antarctica proves
nothing.

   Human footprints found side-by-side with dinosaur tracks, suggest
   that man lived at the time of the dinosaurs.

Human footprints were NEVER found side by side with dinosaur tracks, and
none were shown in situ in the program. The only "human" footprints ever
found were crude carved forgeries. A great deal of work was done by
scientists in carefully investigating the Paluxy site. Did you
review any of it? Don't you believe any of it? If not, why not? Please
be specific.

   Much of this evidence has already been judged false by the scientific
   community, but many of these judgements may have been based on
   personal and professional biases, rather than on the evidence itself.

That's like the pot calling the kettle black. The writers and producers
of this program completely ignored the mountain of evidence
contradicting their strongly anti-evolution bias.

   In this show we attempted to re-examine potentially valuable evidence
   that has been unjustly disqualified.  Evidently, we struck a nerve.

It has not been unjustly disqualified. The "evidence," far from being
ignored and covered up, has been objectively evaluated, in some cases
going back many years, and found to be completely unfounded. You have
presented "evidence" based on total falsehoods, such as the allegation
that the inclination of the earth's axis of rotation varies periodically
over a period of thousands of years. Are we to replace astronomical
facts gathered and repeatedly confirmed for at least a hundred years
with make-believe explanations of an ignorant opportunist? Is that what
you call "potentially valuable evidence"?

   As we expected, the response to our show has been heated.  We've been
   accused of pseudo-science and setting back the course of education in
   America.  But our goal was simply to present the public with evidence
   which suggests an alternative view to some of our most accepted
   theories.  After all, the theory of evolution is still a theory, not
   a fact, and therefore alternative views should be welcomed, not
   banned.

With respect to evolution being a theory, not a fact, please read the
following:


IS EVOLUTION "JUST A THEORY"?,  by Lenny Flank         (c) 1995

     One of the most common accusations heard from
creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been
proven".  Such assertions are also heard from conservatives who
give political support to the creationists.  For instance, during the
1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience,
concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory
only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of
science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as
infallible as it was once believed." (cited in Berra 1990, p. 123,
Wills 1990 p. 120, and Eldredge 1982 p. 28)
     This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the
methods and principles of science.  The scientific method holds as
a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that
nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty.  Every
conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it
is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to
the best of our current knowledge".  Science does not deal with
absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models.
The distinction between these is important in understanding and
in countering creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also
has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific
meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies
have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically
illiterate, and have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific
thinking, and the creationists always make a point of appealing to
this popular ignorance).
     In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply
something that is unproven--an assertion which may or may not
be true.  It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when
they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being
that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more
standing than creation "science".  In science, however, the word
"theory" has a very definite meaning.  Under the scientific method,
the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in
the form of verifiable evidence.  Once data has been gathered, the
next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data.
This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent
guess.  (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what
most people mean when they say "theory").
     Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against
the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the
established facts.  If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data,
then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded
completely and a new hypothesis formed.  Once a hypothesis has
passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific
theory--i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to
interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data.  On the basis
of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new
data may be gathered are identified.  If the theory continues to
correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict
the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high
degree of reliability.  Such a theory is NOT a mere supposition or
guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct
experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of
predictive ability.
     When a related group of theories are correlated to one
another and demonstrate the ability to be predictive and to explain
the data, they form a scientific model.  Models are the intellectual
framework within which vast areas of particular data are explained
and described.  They also serve to indicate potential new areas of
research and new hypotheses which can be tested to see if they
can be integrated into the model.
     An example may help to illustrate these distinctions.
Observational data indicates to us that we can see the masts of
tall ships while they are still far out on the horizon, before we can
see the deck or the hull.  We can also observe that the shadow of
the earth, cast upon the moon during a rare eclipse, appears to be
circular.  We can therefore formulate the hypothesis that the earth
is round.  This would explain all of our data.  Using this
hypothesis, we can predict that, if the earth is indeed a sphere, we
should be able to sail completely around the earth without falling
off or coming to an edge.  And, if this experiment is performed, we
find that we can indeed do so.  Our hypothesis has now been
verified by experimentation, shows itself capable of correlating a
variety of disparate data, and shows an ability to be predictive,
and is therefore established as a scientific theory, the Theory of
the Round Earth.
     If we combine our theory of the round earth with other
theories such as the theory of a round moon and a theory of
heliocentrism, we can formulate a model--the moon orbits around
the earth, the earth orbits around the sun, and all are part of a
system of planets orbiting around a central star.  This is the model
of the heliocentric solar system.
     Please note that NONE of this is to be treated as an absolute
fact.  It is entirely possible that some later observation or data
will completely upset our model.  Many times, a model must be
modified and altered in order to explain new data or to expand its
explanatory power.  No scientific model can be viewed as an
absolute proof.  Perhaps at some point in time the shadow of the
earth upon the moon will be seen to be a square, or perhaps one
day we will see that the moon does not really revolve around the
earth.  However, based upon all of the data we possess currently,
we can conclude that neither of these possibilities is very likely,
and we are justified in having a high degree of confidence in the
solar system model.  Although it has not been (and cannot
logically be) proven to an absolute certainty, it has been verified by
every experiment we have conducted so far, and it has proven to
have profound predictive power.
     This model then becomes a basis on which to formulate new
hypotheses and to investigate new areas of research.  As various
scientists produce new data and formulate new theories and
hypotheses, a consensus will be reached about which theories are
better suited to the data and which have a higher degree of
confidence.  In this manner, the model is constantly being
modified, improved and expanded in order to encompass more and
more data.  Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are
constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the
universe increases.
     Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth".
At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these
approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more
testing of new evidence and data is done.  However, no scientific
model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess
knowledge of ALL facts and data.  As long as we do not have
perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be
considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of
what we know.
     The current theories of evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian
gradualism through natural selection, punctuated equilibria and
neutralist evolution)  together constitute a scientific model.  This
model has survived (with some modifications) every experimental
test, and has not been invalidated by any data or evidence we now
possess.  Evolutionary theory has demonstrated an ability to
correlate and explain a wide variety of disparate data with a high
degree of confidence, and has proven to have the ability to predict
experimental results and to point out new areas that may be
investigated for new data.  As a scientific theory, the theory of
evolution has the same standing and authority that atomic theory,
the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum physics possess.
     As a complement to labelling evolution as "just a theory", the
creationists also like to refer to their own particular outlook as a
"model".  Examination will quickly show that this is simply not
true--creationism is not a scientific model in any sense of the
word.  Scientific hypotheses, theories and models are all based
upon several fundamental criteria.  First, they must explain the
world as it is observed, using naturalistic mechanisms which can
be tested and verified by independent observation and
experimentation.  Although the existence of God is not necessarily
denied by science, supernatural explanations which are based
upon the unseen actions of God are excluded from science as a
matter of necessity.  As biologist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out,
science is dependent upon the assumption that the world is real
and operates according to regular and predictable laws, which are
not changed from moment to moment at the whim of supernatural
forces:  "My practice as a scientist is atheistic.  That is to say,
when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil
is going to interfere with its course." (cited in Montagu, 1984, p.
241)  Geologist and theologian Dr James Skehan also notes, "I
undertake my scientific research with the confident assumption
that the earth follows the laws of nature which God established at
creation . . . . My studies are performed with the confidence that
God will not capriciously confound scientific results by 'slipping in'
a miracle!" (Strahler, 1987, pp. 40-41)

     In a manner similar to that of science, the actions of
supernatural entities are also excluded from the legal arena--no
person is permitted to argue in a US court that they are not
responsible for a crime because Satan was in control of them, or
that such and such a crime happened because it was the will of
God.  Neither system denies the existence of God, but both exclude
God as an explanatory mechanism.

     The creationist idea that God divinely created the universe
may or may not be true, but, by postulating a supernatural event
which occurs outside of the natural laws of the universe, such an
idea places itself firmly outside the realm of science.  There is
simply no experiment which can verify any of its assertions and no
predictions of future data that can be drawn from this hypothesis,
and those who hold such conclusions can do so only on the basis
of faith.  This is fine for a religious outlook or an ideology, but it
has nothing at all in common with science.

     Another characteristic of science is that it must be
falsifiable.  As we have seen, it is not possible to "prove" that any
scientific model is absolutely true and correct.  It IS, however,
quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is NOT
correct--that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false.  The
evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of
ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF
into existence from nowhere, for instance.  On a more realistic
level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of
the three basics we pointed out earlier--variation, heritability or
selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some
genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically
impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such
mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next).
The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains
of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be
reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian
period of earth's history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it
were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are
elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of
evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth.
So far, however, no evidence has been reliably presented, by the
creationists or by anyone else, which falsifies the evolution model.
Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data
which has been collected has tended to confirm its validity.
     And how does creation "science" fare when put to this test?
The central tenet of creation "science" is that God created the
universe out of nothing, by Divine fiat.  This "model" is, however,
completely unfalsifiable.  There is no test or experiment which can
conclusively show that God does NOT exist, or that creation did
NOT occur.  Since, by definition, God is capable of doing or
accomplishing anything, there is nothing that can be pointed to
that God cannot have done, and therefore the hypothesis itself is
unfalsifiable.  Any potential problem with the "creation model" can
be (and very many times has been) explained away with a wave of
the hand, with the simple assertion, "God did it that way."
Because the tenets of scientific creationism cannot be tested,
investigated or falsified, and because they invoke supernatural
entities as explanatory mechanisms, they cannot be considered to
be a scientific model.
     Some creationists, moreover, have turned this criticism into
a virtue, and have argued that, since it cannot be proven that
Divine Creation did NOT happen, then it must be assumed that it
DID happen.  This, of course, violates basic logic.  One could just
as easily assert that life on earth is the result of experiments by
extra-terrestrial biologists from the planet Melmac, who seeded the
primordial earth with artificial biological compounds.  There is no
way to test or verify this hypothesis, and thus no way to prove it
wrong.  This, however, means only that it is not a valid scientific
theory--it does not mean that there must of necessity be
Melmackian exo-biologists.
     In court, the creationists have argued that their view is not
necessarily religious, since it refers to "a creator", not to "God".
During the Arkansas trial, for instance, the defenders of the
Balanced Treatment Act argued, "There is nothing inherently
religious about the terms 'creator' or 'creation', as used in the
context of Act 590.  Act 590 is concerned with a non-religious
conception of 'creation' and 'creator', not the religious concepts
dealt with in the Bible or religious writings. . .  All that creation-
science requires is that the entity which caused creation have
power, intelligence and a sense of design." (Defendant's Trial Brief,
McLean v Arkansas, 1981)  This argument is nonsensical, and it
has been rejected by every judge who's ever heard it.
     In their lucid moments, the creationists are quite willing to
concede that their "model" is not scientific.  Henry Morris, the
founder of the Institute for Creation Research, openly admits, in
his textbook Scientific Creationism:

"A.  Creation cannot be proved
     1.  Creation . . . is inaccessible to the scientific method.
     2.  It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to
describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a
process CAN take place."
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 5)

"The creationist model does presuppose a God, or Creator, who did
create things in the beginning." (Morris, Scientific Creationism,
1974, p. 4)

     Another ICR  member, Duane Gish, writes, in his book
Evolution? The Fossils Say No!:

"Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods
of experimental science.  Neither can it qualify, according to the
above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have
been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable." (Gish,
1978, p. 21)

"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He
used, for He used processes which are not now operating
anywhere in the natural universe.  . . . We cannot discover by
scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used
by the Creator." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)

     Lately, the creationists have taken to arguing that, while
creationism is indeed not a science, neither is evolution--evolution
is, they say, a "religion" of "secular humanism".  As Gish puts it in
a letter to Discover magazine:  "Creationists have repeatedly stated
that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each
is equally religious)."  (Gish, Discover, July 1981, cited in Overton
Opinion)  Paul Ellwanger says, "We're not making scientific claims
for creation, but we are challenging evolution's claim to be
scientific." (Attachment to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v
Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion)  Ellwanger was,
ironically, the author of Arkansas Act 590, which required
creationism to be taught as a "science".
     The creationists have yet to explain why, if they now concede
that creation is not a scientific model, they did make that claim
when the Arkansas anti-evolution law was passed, or why they
have referred to themselves as "scientific" creationists,  or why
they have demanded for several years that their outlook be treated
as a "science" and not as a mere religious dogma.  This tendency
to say completely contradictory things is typical of the creationist
movement--their story changes according to the needs of the
moment, with no apparent concern for internal consistency (first,
creationism was openly religious, then after the Supreme Court
ruled that religious outlooks cannot be taught in public schools,
creationism became a "science" that was just as valid as evolution,
and after that argument was tossed out of court, creationism
became a religion again, but now evolution became a religion too--
a religious faith that can't be falsified--which doesn't stop
creationists from presenting  the scientific evidence which they
claim proves evolution false.).

     The cynicism and intellectual dishonesty of the creationist
movement was best illustrated by documents presented during the
Arkansas trial, which showed that the creationists were advising
potential witnesses to downplay the religious dogma behind
creationism in an attempt to avoid having the law declared
unconstitutional.  Paul Ellwanger, the creationist who actually
drafted the Arkansas law, wrote to one supporter: "It would be very
wise, if not actually essential, that all of us who are engaged in
this legislative effort be careful not to present our position and our
work in a religious framework.  For example, in written
communications that might somehow be shared with those other
persons whom we may be trying to convince, it would be well to
exclude our own personal testimony and/or witness for Christ, but
rather, if we are so moved, to give that testimony on a separate
attached note."  (Attachment to Ellwanger deposition, McLean v
Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion)  In another letter,
Ellwanger wrote: "We'd like to suggest that you and your co-
workers be very cautious about mixing creation-science with
creation-religion. . . Please urge your co-workers not to allow
themselves to get sucked into the 'religion' trap of mixing the two
together, for such mixing does incalculable harm to the legislative
thrust." (Attachment to Miller deposition, McLean v Arkansas,
1981, cited in Overton Opinion).  And in yet another letter, he
says, "If you have a clear choice between having grassroots leaders
of this statewide bill promotion effort to be ministerial or non-
ministerial, be sure to opt for the non-ministerial.  It does the bill
effort no good to have ministers out there in the public forum, and
the adversary will surely pick up at this point. . . . . " (Attachment
to Ellwanger Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in
Overton Opinion).

     At the same time that the creationists were urging their
supporters to downplay the religious basis of their outlook, they
made no secret of their religious aims when appealing for funds or
for political support among supporters or conservative legislators.
Much of the creationist literature openly declares that the motives
behind the "scientific" creationists' attacks on evolution are
religious and moral, not scientific.  Ellwanger, the person who
wrote the Arkansas anti-evolution law, admitted in a letter to the
legislator who sponsored it for him, "I view this whole battle as one
between God and anti-God forces."  (Attachment to Ellwanger
Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion)
Georgia Judge Braswell Dean, a creationist supporter, declared,
"This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness,
promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, pregnancies,
abortions, pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning, and proliferations of
crimes of all types." (Time Magazine, March 16, 1982, p. 82)
     The Creation Science Research Center has declared that its
"research" has proven that the scientific model of evolution is
responsible for "the moral decay of spiritual values, which
contributes to the destruction of mental health", as well as "a
widespread breakdown in law and order" (Creation Science Report,
April 1976, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 285).   Evolutionary theory,
the CSRC pontificates, is directly responsible for "divorce,
abortion, and rampant venereal diseases."  (Segraves, The Creation
Report, 1977, cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 285)
     Apparently, creationists seem to think that none of the evils
of the world existed until Darwin published On the Origin of
Species in the mid-19th century.   Unfortunately, the creationists
have given us no written statement about which varieties of
"Satanism" and "moral decay" can be attributed to evolution and
which can be attributed to other scientific models such as the
general theory of relativity and gravity, the molecular theory of
chemistry, or quantum nuclear physics.
     The conclusion is inescapable; the creationist movement,
knowing that it would be illegal to force their religious viewpoints
onto others through legislation, instead made a deliberate effort to
hide their religious goals so as to not have their law declared
unconstitutional.  Now that their legislative effort has fallen flat
on its face, the need for the pretense of "science" is removed, and
they can once again revert to their openly religious dogma.
     In conclusion, then, by their own admission, the outlook of
the creation "scientists" is not in any way, shape or form scientific.
It is nothing more than a cynical and deliberate attempt to
enshrine their own religious dogma into law under the guise of
"science", in direct violation of the US Constitution and of all the
basic principles of democracy.

The above document was retransmitted by Frank Steiger with the permission
of the author, Lenny Flank.
___________________________________________________________________________

   Probably the most common criticism is that the show gave no opposing
   view from the academic community.  The producers' position is that
   the accepted view has been so frequently presented to the public that
   only a brief summary by the host was necessary.  It was more valuable
   to focus on the documented anomalous evidence.

We are not dealing with "anomalous documented evidence." We are dealing
with falsehoods that have been demonstrated to be falsehoods over and
over again in the past.  The statement that the accepted view has been
frequently presented is definitely not true. Trinity Broadcasting
Network regularly produces anti-evolution propaganda. There have been no
counterparts to "Origins of Mankind" and "Search for Noah's Ark." Just
one anti-evolution group, the Institute for Creation Research, has 50
full time employees and a multi-million dollar annual budget existing
for the sole purpose of destroying evolution. None of this massive
effort is matched by the scientific community. Please name just one TV
program in the last 10 years that has refuted anti-evolution propaganda.

   For example, if man evolved from the apes around 5 million years ago,
   then how does the scientific community explain tools of modern man
   found in rock strata dating to 55 million years old?   (J.D Whitney,
   California State Geologist, Table Mt. Mine) Those artifacts currently
   reside in a museum in Berkeley, California.  When we applied for
   permission to film them, we were denied by the museum.

Based on your description, I assume you are referring to some stone
tools, identical to those used by Indians at the time, that were
discovered in a gold mine excavated during the California Gold Rush of
1849. If that is the case, the explanation is simple: they were left
there after the mine was dug.

   Another criticism is that the information in our show is presented by
   experts who do not hold degrees in their fields of expertise and
   therefore their opinions are not endorsed by the scientific
   community. But Dr. Virginia Steen McIntyre holds a PhD in Geology and
   was a fellow with the USGS when she did her field work in Mexico.
   Her conclusions about the age of the spearpoints she dated (250,000
   years BP) were backed by two other USGS members, yet because of their
   implications, the findings were ignored and her career was ruined.

I suspect that there is more to the story than you have presented.
Please describe just what tests did the US Geological Survey did on the
artifacts, not the strata. By the way, there were 13 other "experts" you
haven't mentioned. What were their qualifications?

   In the case of the Paluxy River man tracks, to our knowledge, no
   accredited archaeologist has ever proven the prints to be fake. If
   this is to be a fair discussion let's all play by the same rules.

Yes, indeed, let's all play by the same rules. Here is a list of
geologists who have proven the prints to be fake: Laurie Godfrey, John
Cole, R. J. Hastings, J.D. Schaffersman, Jim Farlow, and Glen Kuban.

   We never take the stance that we know the answers or in any way
   suggest that we will provide them.  We are merely offering an
   alternative hypothesis.  In this way, we feel that the American
   public is fully capable of making up its own mind.

How can the public make up its mind when it is presented with only side
of the controversy, a presentation based on falsehoods and deception?
Please explain.

cc: National Broadcasting Company [online@nbc.com]
    Natl Center Science Educ. [ncse@crl.com]
    John Cole [jrc@tei.umass.edu]
    Fred Edwords [ap818@freenet.Buffalo.edu]
    Paul Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
    Anne Ihnen [annei@wrq.com]
    Skeptical Inquirer [skepticmag@aol.com]
    Glen Kuban [GKuban@aol.com]
    NBC News [dateline@news.nbc.com]
    Amy Samson [asamson@slate.Mines.EDU]
    LA Times-CuttingEdge [edge@news.latimes.com]
    Dateline TV Program [dateline@nbc.com]

 * QMPro 1.53 * You can't learn that which you think you already know.