Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


"Your ancestors are not apes," *Charles Darwin wrote in his book. Research scientists tell us that no evidence of a nonhuman ancestry of man has been found. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. Do not let evolutionists deny you your birthright. You were created by God; you did not come from a flock of monkeys. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Ancient Man

Introduction: Evolutionary theory just does not agree with the evidence
Ancient Peoples not Primitive: Many of them were more intelligent than we are today
Lucy: This australopithecine was nothing more than an ape

This material is excerpted from the book, ANCIENT MAN. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Ancient Man.


Evolutionary theory just does not agree with the evidence.

"One might ask why the new-Darwinian paradigm does not awaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information."—*C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human intelligence."—*S. Zucherman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.

" `What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arther N. Field.

"The search of the proverbial `missing link' in man's evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."—*Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11 (2), pp. 87-114.


Many of them were more intelligent than we are today.

"Many of the so-called `primitive' peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, central India, South America, and the western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication, Nature, suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Home sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 cc; Neanderthal's is 1600 cc. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man's."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are repudiations to be made and public acclaim to be savored for people who unearth even older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominoid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

"Careful examination of the Piltdown Man bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap and ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone."—Herold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang `child,' was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis]."—*W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparison on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as `Lucy.' "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.


This australopithecine was nothing more than an ape.

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of [bones from] two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The `evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man's origins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

"Humans microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns."—Marvin Lubenow, "Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny," in Bible-Science Newsletter 14(11):1-4 (1976).

"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineages were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.

"Adult chimps and gorillas, for instance, have elongated faces, heavy brow ridges, powerful jaws, and small braincases in relation to overall skull and other characteristic proportions. Baby apes have flat faces, rounded braincases, light brow ridges, proportionately smaller jaws, and many other bodily features strikingly like human beings."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 325.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.


To the next topic in this series:

FUNNY STORIES ABOUT YOUR ANCESTORS: Are we really supposed to believe this foolishness?