Evolutionists claim humans have evolved over millions of years from brute ape-like creatures that were our ancestors. Further evolutionists claim they can document this alleged history of our ancestors based on clues from the fossil record. As proof, they often refer to the lineage of ape-human ancestors as “the story of our origins”.
But stop and think for a moment. Can “stories” be used to as the basis for “scientific” argumentation?
Ape Man: The Story of Human Evolution is the title of a book that has also been made into a television documentary claiming that modern man has evolved from brute-ape creatures. The book and the documentary are full of claims saying that “science” has discovered the truth about who we are and where we have come from.
For example, consider the following statement that is made in the introduction of the book:
Based on interviews with leading scientists working all over the world, Ape Man explores the story of our evolution, and of the people who have devoted their lives to discovering the truth about our origins. There have been many species of human-like creatures in the past. Now all but Homo sapiens are extinct.
It is true that science is supposed to be dedicated to the search for truth. It is also true that many scientists have dedicated their lives to searching for the truth. However, not all scientists, in their search for truth, are dedicated to the scientific method as a means of finding the truth.
The previous statement I quoted, although it seems to be made in support of the search for truth, actually indicates what some scientists do (in an attempt to become famous scientists). Rather than gather facts, they take fragments and turn them into ancestors.
What do I mean by that?
Well, recall what the statement said: “there have been many species of human-like creatures in the past - now all but Homo sapiens are extinct.”
The facts show, there are no living intermediates – all of the supposed ancestors of man have died out – they are extinct. Therefore it is the task of “science” to reconstruct these alleged ancestors. We have monkeys and we have humans in the world today – but we don’t have the living relatives between. It is the responsibility, therefore, of “science,” to fill in the gaps.
This is where it becomes interesting. Especially for people who are not so easily convinced that the “story of our origins” is “good science.” Good science must be based on good observations that provide sound conclusions. When I see a painting or a model of an alleged ancestor that is based on a fragment of a jaw, a toe bone, or a footprint that looks like my own, I wonder how scientific this “story” really is. Is it possible a story is being told that is based on biased assumptions in order to provide evidence that isn’t evidence at all?
I am convinced this may well be the case. Based on years of studying the claims of evolutionists and looking at the so-called evidence, it appears to me that some of the stories that have been presented in the name of science are nothing more than stories. Zealous promoters of science who use stories rather than science, may be convincing to the unsuspecting who have placed their trust in “scientists with credentials”.
However, this may not be science. In fact it would be appropriate to call it what it is - pseudoscience.