Posted by: Rob Lester | April 9, 2010

Piltdown Man is not what he seems

In 1912, a worker digging near the town of Piltdown, England found a piece of bone (as the story goes).  He gave it to a local archaeologist named Charles Dawson who determined it was a skull and later found a jawbone at the same location.  It appeared to be a primitive human ancestor and was named “Piltdown Man.”  It wasn’t until over 40 years later in 1953 that it was exposed as a fake.  It was actually a modern human skull paired with the jawbone and teeth of an orangutan.  The teeth had been filed down to make them appear more human and all the bones had been chemically treated (and even painted!) to make them look ancient.  Charles Dawson had died in 1916, but it was determined that all the historical artifacts he supposedly found and which were displayed at the Hastings Museum were forgeries.  Religion is not without its frauds and charlatans.  But let us not believe that Darwinist evolution is pure as the driven snow and free from its own agenda-driven con men.  Question everything.  God is not afraid of investigation.



  1. Amen!

  2. Again, who was it that debunked Piltdown man an other hoaxes?

    A. Creationists
    B. Evolutionary Scientists

    If you answered B, you win a nobel prize.

    Creationists. Setting new double-standards.

    “Science is wrong!”
    *science debunks new find*

    • Thanks for taking the time to comment. Although it was rude, it allows me to clear up something. The whole point of the post was to illustrate that new discoveries are often met with fanfare and unexamined acceptance by the scientific community (if it supports evolution). Remember Ida? A large grain of salt is necessary in these and many cases. We expect science to be self-correcting. Sadly, it is rarely as honest as it should be. Like a headline which false but the correction gets placed on page B17.

  3. It is not science that is dishonest but some people. Science is the most honest and reliable method available to humans to discover the truth. This is largely because of peer review, which requires other scientists to critically evaluate claims made by scientists and also to repeat the experiments they have done. Furthermore, scientists do not accept something as ‘true’ unless it has been extensively validated by a lot of reliable evidence. Piltdown man was never accepted as true, it was always regarded with suspicion. As in other areas of science, it would at most be regarded as a provisional truth until verifying or falsifying evidence is found, and the latter was obviously all that was found. In any case the Piltdown man hoax does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection for which there is a huge amount of verifying evidence and no falsifying evidence, despite the sophistry of creationists. It is as close to factual as anything can be. The scientific method contrasts interestingly with the beliefs of creationism. You do not have a single reliable piece of evidence for your beliefs and you refuse to recognise any evidence that contradicts what you believe. You call this faith but it is in other words self-deception and intellectual dishonesty. By the way your picture is not the Piltdown man skull but it is Australopithecus aferensis, a reliable fossil, of which a number of similar verifying fossils have been found.

    • Thank you, Tom, for taking the time to read the blog and comment. I agree totally that the problem is not science, but disingenuous people. I regret if my post suggested otherwise. I am not, nor are any creationists, “anti-science.” We are against unproven theories and hypotheses being paraded as proof. The peer-review process is supposed to ensure accuracy and accountability. Sadly, this process is unfairly applied when evidence seems to favor a younger earth. Please see the blog article I posted about Mary Schweitzer’s research on T. rex bones with soft tissue ( Piltdown Man may have been “suspect,” but it was still taught as truth for over 50 years before the truth came out. The same is true of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings which, although proven to be fakes many decades ago, have still appeared in biology textbooks within the last few years! You make several unfounded assertions in your post with sweeping generalizations. “You do not have a single reliable piece of evidence for your beliefs and you refuse to recognise any evidence that contradicts what you believe.” This very same charge has been made (and largely ignored) by creationists against evolutionists. The real question is what one deems “reliable.” We may not agree on this, but I genuinely appreciate your comment. It promotes healthy, respectful debate. Thank you and God bless.

  4. And, Tom, I know it is a picture of Lucy’s skull (reconstructed). I was unable to find a pic of Piltdown Man so I used Lucy as a representative of Darwinist human evolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: