Much of the news about evolution we encounter most often in newspapers and on television are about human beings. There is much speculation about what anatomical and cultural changes hominids–supposed human ancestors–went through during the process of “becoming human” and what the basic causes of the alleged evolutionary development of human characteristics were, such as walking on two feet and possession of big-sized brain. For example, dental remains are examined to discover eating habits and their influence on supposed evolution; or the geographical distribution of fossils is studied to discover where human beings first appeared and how they migrated to other areas.
These topics that appear in newspapers or on television leave no place for controversy; statements are made without a hint of doubt in them. The headlines are designed to corroborate this sense of certainty: “Darwin’s Theory Proven”, “Missing Link in Human Evolution Found”, “Four Million Year Old Ancestor of Human Beings Discovered”. These headlines relate propaganda about human evolution to the masses as if it were the uncontested truth. Evolutionist claims are communicated to us from a remote corner of the world as if they were scientific fact.
The same topics are presented in a much different way in scientific magazines. This time fossils, transition to bipedalism scenarios, manual dexterity and the development of the brain are published in the form of “controversy”. Contrary to what we read in newspapers and see on television, there are various discoveries and scenarios on which evolutionist scientists are not in agreement. This situation is summarized in an article in the magazine, Discovering Archaeology:
Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds. (“Family Fights: The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light,” Discovering Archaeology, July-August 1999, p.36)
The propaganda about human evolution so assiduously presented in newspapers and on television is uncertain, based on imaginary speculations and hotly contested behind the scenes. Most people think that the statements that emerge are based on clear scientific fact; in reality, they are more contested suppositions added to existing ones. Newspapers and televisions are like stages, which the scenarios of human evolution are presented with seemingly reasonable cause and effects and scientific magazines are like the chaotic behind-the-scenes where the contentious speculations are constantly in dispute.
In a theater, the basic thing that differentiates the stage from behind the scenes is the degree of organization. The stage decor is always for a specific purpose. Behind the scenes is disorganized; it is a storage area for various props that will create the desired effect on stage. The props are brought on and off the stage but they never disturb its order.
The stage and behind-the-scenes of evolutionist news is the same. When a new speculation emerges from contention and enters the stage from behind the scenes (that is, when it is reported by newspapers and television), it puts on the costume of scientific fact, purified from all its contentious aspects. Thus, the parade of new discoveries and new speculations goes on. At this juncture, great care is taken that the stage—that is, what the public sees—is organized. A few fossils and a piece of decor called a “family tree” are presented for the audience to see.
As the show goes on, there is an on-going argument by evolutionist scientists behind the scenes about the kind of decor. If they discover a prop that can complement the decor, they will display it with all the means of propaganda at their disposal. On the contrary, if the “missing link” loses its status as a stage prop, the change would be passed over in silence.
This cycle keeps repeating. In time, behind-the-scenes discoveries, scenarios and scientists change. But the principle does not change: the order displayed on the stage is constant. Most people perceive the decor changes on stage as applications of the scientific process. In fact, even if scientists are involved in this process, its purpose is not to find the truth. The purpose of all the efforts of materialist scientists and the organizations that support them is to establish their own view of the world and the story of existence in every area of culture—schools, universities, museums, art exhibits and in the media. This is the reason why they continue to use the “family tree” prop in their stage productions.
The “missing link” is a “role” in the script of the play written according to the materialist philosophy. This role passes from one bone to another. Fossils taken out of the family tree may be forgotten but the important thing for materialists is not who the actor is but that the show goes on. Evolutionists simply select the best props from behind the scenes and present them as the so-called missing links. From the American Museum of Natural History, Gareth Nelson, describes this arbitrary selection:
“We”ve got to have some ancestors. We”ll pick those.” Why? “Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.” That”s [the interrelation of fossils with the missing link concept] by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating. (Nelson, Gareth [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], interview, Bethell T., The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986, in Johnson P.E., Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p.76)
A materialist scientist looks at fossils he discovers deceived by the myth that “human beings evolved as a result of coincidence”. Then he offers these fossils as proof of the myth he believes in. The fossils presented as the missing link are not proof of evolutionist claims but only of the circular reasoning and blind faith of materialists.
Evolution is a deception. The term “missing link” was “invented” as an imaginary support needed to explain the origin of species from the materialist point of view. In 150 years of fossil research no scientific support for it has been discovered. The idea of the missing link began in man’s imagination and there it stays. This fact is admitted in an evolutionist magazine 120 years after Darwin’s The Origin of Species:
Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school. The missing link between man and the apes is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated. (Newsweek, November 3, 1980, emphasis ours)
Evolution is an imaginary process in the service of materialism. This process assumes that imaginary missing links existed. But after more than a century of digging, scientists have not found any evidence for them. In short, the story of the so-called “missing link” is nothing more than a ghost story; like ghosts, it does not exist. And the blind faith of the many who believe it will not change this fact.