Evolutionists have no option but to believe in evolution, otherwise, they would be unemployable. This means that every scrap of evidence they find must fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Any fact that does not fit is either explained away or ignored.
Here’s the latest example:
“The path of human evolution may need to be rewritten after archaeologists discovered that monkeys also produce ‘tool-like flakes’ that were thought to be uniquely man-made.
“In a discovery that calls into question decades of research, a band of wild bearded capuchin monkeys in Brazil were seen hammering rocks to extract minerals, causing large flakes to fly off.
“Previously archaeologists believed the flakes were only made by humans through a process called ‘stone-knapping’ where a larger rock is hammered with another stone to produce sharp blade-like slivers which can be used for arrows, spears or knives.
“The flakes were thought to represent a turning point in human evolution because they demonstrated a level of planning, cognition and hand manipulation that could not be achieved by other animals.
“But the new research suggests that flakes can be made without any such foresight. In fact, they can simply be made by accident.”
This isn’t the first time that the theory of evolution has been thrown for a loop. The Pacific Justice Institute reported that lab technician Mark Armitage1 lost his job at a California State University when he discovered soft tissue on a triceratops fossil and then published what he found in a peer-reviewed secular journal.2
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, Armitage “came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”
Publishing an article on what was discovered and the possible implications of that discovery is what science is all about. The point in publishing is to make the information known to a wider scientific audience. Firing someone because the evidence may call into question long-held views by evolutionists is neither ethical nor scientific.
Armitage’s peer review article is not the first soft tissue discovery that casts doubt on the timetable of evolutionary history. In 2004, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University, caused a stir when she found “soft tissue” in a “fossilized dinosaur skeleton.” “It’s a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T.rex walked what’s now Hell Creek Mountain in Montana.”3
“I had one reviewer tell me,” Schweitzer reported, “that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”4
When evolutionary archaeologists first discovered “stone-knapping,” they immediately plugged the discovery into an already developed evolutionary paradigm. The discovery had to be an evolutionary discovery, a technological missing link between humanity’s ape-like ancestors and modern homo sapiens. The capuchin monkeys proved the long-standard evolutionary theory wrong. This new discovery won’t put a dent in the evolutionary paradigm because, according to one evolutionist, “There are no alternatives to evolution that are science,” and all the “alternatives are religious.”5
It’s necessary for many atheistic evolutionists that “materialism is absolute,” as Richard Lewontin asserts, “for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”6
There’s a well-documented history of seeing everything through the lens of the unchallengeable paradigm of evolution. Rousas J. Rushdoony recounts a long-standing example of how paradigm thinking works:
“Louis Leakey, director of Kenya’s Centre for Prehistory and Palaeontology in Nairobi, described his discovery, together with his wife Mary, of a bit of skull and two teeth, in these words: ‘We knelt together to examine the treasure . . . and almost cried with sheer joy. For years people had been telling us that we’d better stop looking, but I felt deep down that it had to be there. You must be patient about these things.’ The time was July 17, 1959. This scene is a curious one on two accounts. First, the scientist Leakey knew what he had found before he examined it: he worked by faith, and viewed his findings by faith. He was finding ‘proof’ for a theory already accepted, and he accepted his finding as ‘proof’ on sight. Second, the intense emotionalism and joy sound more like a revival experience than a scientific analysis.”7
Armitage is described as “a gifted scientist who has become an expert in microscopy. In addition to running his own microscope company, he also worked as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge.” ↩
Mark Hollis Armitage and Kevin Lee Anderson, “Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus,” Acta Histochemica, 115 (6), 603-608, 2013. ↩
Barry Yeoman, “Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery,” Discover (April 2006), 37. Also see “Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue: 70 million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels” (March 24, 2005). ↩
Mary MacDonald, “A textbook case in Cobb County,” Atlanta-Journal Constitution (April 14, 2002), F1. ↩
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31. ↩
Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Mythology of Science (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1967), 85. ↩