The IDA FUROR, first acclaimed by the Darwinist Jorn Hurum, a paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in Oslo, and then lauded to the skies by the Darwinist David Attenborough as the missing link that had been sought for so many years and described in the press under such headlines as “the ancestor of man” and “the eighth wonder of the world” has even attracted intense criticism from Darwinist scientists. In their eyes, this peculiar show IS LITERALLY A CLOWNING!
Many fossils have been made the subject of speculation during the history of the Darwinist deception. Theses have been written about many false fossils (there are 40 separate doctoral theses about PILTDOWN Man, which was subsequently established as a hoax). Pictures of these as the forerunner of human beings that never actually existed have appeared in Darwinist publications (pictures of Nebraska Man, based on the discovery of a single boar tooth, and his entire family appeared in newspapers for months on end). And some of these fakes have been taken from country to country and placed on display. All these fossils were the subject of intense Darwinist propaganda, to be replaced by a profound silence in Darwinist circles once they were shown to be false or hoaxes.
On occasion the speculation continued, quite shamelessly, even once fossils had been shown to be false. Haeckel’s false illustrations, for instance, continued to appear in text books even after Haeckel had admitted they were fraudulent. Another well-known example is the evolution of the horse series. Scientists have admitted that this series is a fantasy devoid of the slightest foundation. Yet the series is still exhibited and discussed in text books. That is the extent to which Darwinist speculation can be carried.
The furor over Ida resembles these previous instances, but also differs from them in one regard. This time, Darwinists have totally lost control. Because Darwinism is in a historic state of collapse. Darwinist stratagems are being exposed one by one. That is why Darwinists have made such a sudden fuss over a fossil lemur that had been kept on the shelf for 26 years. Some Darwinist scientists initially reacted with caution, issuing moderate statements along the lines of, “it is still too early to refer to it as a missing link.” But the propaganda reached such alarming dimensions and became so blatant that even Darwinist scientists were eventually forced in strong reaction against it.
What have Darwinist scientists said about Ida?
The scandal of the Ida furor has even been criticized by Darwinist scientists.
In an article carried under the title “The Missing Link?” on the ABC News Television web site, the Johns Hopkins University Carnegie Museum of Natural History paleontologist Chris Beard says:
"This fossil is not as close to monkeys, apes, and humans as we are being led to believe."1
In another article in New Scientist magazine titled “Why Ida Fossil Is Not The Missing Link?”, Beard openly states that Ida bears no similarity to human beings, for which reason it cannot be described as a missing link. No matter how much research may be put into it, Ida is not, according to the Darwinist Beard, in that sense the eighth wonder of the world.2 Beard makes it clear that the fossil in question is a fully formed and perfect one that can tell us much about biology.
The Duke University Richard Kay openly admits that there is no scientific analysis to prove that Ida is a missing link, in other words that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.3 Elwyn Simons, a Duke University paleoanthropologist, states that Ida tells us nothing we did not already know. 4
Perhaps the most honest criticism came from the Timesonline web site: “Attenborough...was just one element of the media circus turning Ida into humanity’s newest and best link with its ancient past.”
Timesonline made the following comments about the fossil:
“Such finds are usually unveiled to the world through the sober pages of an academic journal, but for Ida nothing less than a glittering press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York would do. Later the scientists who studied Ida outlined the details of their research. Their pronouncements were just as extravagant.”5
It will be useful to point out here in the context of Darwinists that the information contained in the sober pages of academic journals is not always of any scientific value. Historic scientific frauds such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor were all announced over many pages and for many days in the serious academic journals in question. In order a find is to be of any scientific value, there needs to be scientific evidence of that. But since finds always conflict with their claims (fossils represent perfect life forms, but Darwinists are always on the look out for imaginary, semi-developed transitional forms), Darwinists are never able to produce any scientific evidence. Consequently, no matter how sober the academic journal is, the information given to defend Darwinism, is always only a deception.
Cambridge University Professor of Human Evolution Robert Foley says it is “meaningless” to describe this creature as a missing link.
Two well-known Darwinist paleontologists who share different views about the supposed evolution of man and who are therefore never able to agree, Elwyn Simons from Duke University and Christopher Beard from the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, have made these comments about Ida:6
“Dr. Simons phoned me for the first time in 10 years to share his outrage about this MALARKEY and, for the first time in a decade, I agree with him,” said Beard last week. “...The roll-out was extraordinary and it is now clear that the scientists were under pressure to meet the showbusiness deadlines.”
Simons said, “It’s absurd and dangerous.” “This is all bad science... Darwinius is a wonderful fossil, but IT IS NOT A MISSING LINK OF ANY KIND. IT REPRESENTS A DEAD END IN EVOLUTION.”
In addition to the words of all these scientists setting out the scale of the Ida fraud, Jorn Hurum himself, introduced at the beginning of this article, also admits he performed a circus around Ida and attempts to justify this by saying: “Any pop band is doing the same thing. Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.”
It will be appropriate at this point to recall that Hurum is someone who has made sensational use of fossils in the past. The fact that he has signed a contract with the Atlantic film company about the fossil Ida that he has made such a sensation out of is significant evidence of how far he has taken this circus and how the matter has nothing to do with science at all.
Conclusion:
The fossil Ida, which has even been criticized by Darwinist scientists, is a crystal clear example of the dimension the Darwinist propaganda techniques we have been describing for so long can actually assume. Darwinist propaganda has been carried out by way of these techniques for the last 150 years. The reason why the Ida circus is now coming in for criticism from Darwinist scientists stems from an attempt to carry on with the circus even though the techniques of Darwinist propaganda have been exposed and that fossil in question has been proved to belong to a perfect life form and is in no way any kind of missing link. By being persisted in so shamelessly when the true facts are so obvious the circus has damaged Darwinists’ esteem and forced Darwinist scientists to react.
All Darwinists are of course well aware that Ida is not a transitional form but the fossil of a perfect life form. Contrary to all the speculation, Ida is a flawless life form that lived a perfect life some 47 million years ago. This fossil, which is 95% preserved and whose every detail can therefore be examined, CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE STRUCTURE SUGGESTIVE OF A TRANSITIONAL FORM CHARACTERISTIC. This extraordinary find IS PROOF OF THE FACT OF CREATION.
____________________________
1 The Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009. The Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009
2 Chris Beard, “Why Ida fossil is not the missing link”, New Scientist, May 21, 2009, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
3 Gibbons, A. "Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists. ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.org May 19, 2009, accessed May 20, 2009
4 Dayton, L. Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link. The Australian. Posted on theaustralian.news.com.au May 21, 2009, accessed May 21, 2009
5 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
6 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece