Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 3)

Continued from part 2....

Fakes and Mistakes

There have even been proven fake fossils which have at one time been believed to be proof of common ancestry. A popular example was an animal they called an "archaeoraptor". It had the tail of a dinosoaur and the fore limbs of a bird. National Geographic even published the information on this fossil, but a Chinese paleontologist later proved that it was a fake, and that it had been glued together. I understand that this is not an accurate representation of the entire science community; however, the fact that this has happens should be noted. Jonathan Wells states that there are scores of fake fossils out there which "casts a dark cloud" over the field. I am not saying that fossils are not reliable, but this situation certainly does not help its credibility. And it gets worse...

There is the famous "Java Man". This refers to a archeological find by French scientist Eugene Dubois in 1891. Through his find he used the bones to create what seemed to be a half-man, half-ape, or in other words, a missing link. Many people today accept Java Man as proof of evolution. This has since been proven as a completely unrealistic piece of evidence. Upon further research of this find, one will discover that Dubois only found a skull-cap, a femur and three teeth. Therefore, it can be concluded that a great deal of imagination was involved in deciding that these bones belonged to a living organism which looked very much like a half-man, half-ape. Strobel puts it well in saying that in other words, this Java Man, which so many people over the years have bought into as absolute proof of evolution, was created through nothing more than "speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true". One can only logically conclude that in all likelihood, there are many, many other situations similar to these whereby people believe in "scientific facts" of evolution, which are anything but. Rather, they are misconceptions, which stem from downright misleading information.

Additional information which should be noted regarding Dubois' "Java Man" is as follows:
-Dubois' excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards.
-The femur apparently didn't really belong to the skull cap.
-Examination by famous Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith reveals that the skull cap "was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today".
-A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists discredits Dubois' claims and determines that Java Man plays no part in evolutionary history. (Keep in mind that this is the collaborative decision of nineteen scientists who believe in evolution).

In general, it must be noted that when fossils are found and pieced together, it is not a simple puzzle process. There is a lot of interpretation involved. Dubois' Java Man reveals this, but so have other events in acheological history. For instance, National Geographic once hired four artists to construct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya. Each artist came up with very different interpretations of what the original organism looked like. One appeared like a modern-day African American woman, one had a heavy gorilla-like brow, one had a missing forehead and jaws that looked like a dinosaur with a beak, while another looked like a werewolf.

All of this helps to display the sad fact that many people believe in evolutionary theory based off of information they have been told, or even seen in text books; which upon further examination is simply not reliable. The reason why texts still publish this information as fact - when it has clearly been proven otherwise - baffles me. The scientific community has long deemed such information as false, yet it is still printed as fact. I simply don't get it.

Jonathan Wells sums up the above arguments against Darwinism as follows:

"My conclusion is that the case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future - I don't know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now - people will look back in amazement and say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is. I believe science is pointing strongly toward design. To me, as a scientist, the development of an embryo cries out, 'Design!' The Cambrian explosion - the sudden appearance of complex life, with no evidence of anscestors - is more consistent with design than evolution. Homology, in my opinion, is more compatible with design. The origin of life certainly cries out for a designer. None of these things make as much sense from a Darwiniain perspective as they do from a design perspective."

In other words, what we know to be true clearly points toward design, not Darwinian theory.