Changes

The Piltdown Man was one of many frauds perpetrated by promoters of the theory of evolution. This particular fraud was taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953, when it was conclusively proven to the public to be a hoax. The Piltdown Man was featured in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in Tennessee. Darwinists officially announced the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni''.  This name honored the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson.  The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html]

The Piltdown Man was one of many frauds perpetrated by promoters of the theory of evolution. This particular fraud was taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953, when it was conclusively proven to the public to be a hoax. The Piltdown Man was featured in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in Tennessee. Darwinists officially announced the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni''.  This name honored the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson.  The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref>

[[Image:piltdownman_quennell_1922.png|right|300px|"Piltdown Man", according to evolutionists in 1922.]]

[[Image:piltdownman_quennell_1922.png|right|300px|"Piltdown Man", according to evolutionists in 1922.]]

Doubts about the veracity of the Piltdown man remains can be found as early as 1922 for instance, when evolutionist William King Gregory stated in a highly technical book<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03040525&id=EyF3qtMDRlgC&pg=RA2-PA351 ''The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition''], William King Gregory, 1922, p. 351.</ref> that he published doubts, shared by colleagues, in 1914 about whether the jaw and teeth were associated with the braincase. That 1914 journal article said that someone at the British Museum had confided to him that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized" and "planted in the gravel bed to fool the scientists." Also in 1922, a book aimed at the popular market was depicting elaborate speculation about the daily life of Piltdown Man, giving him a tool. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>  Yet the Piltdown Man continued to be taught children in school, as in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].

Doubts about the veracity of the Piltdown man remains can be found as early as 1922 for instance, when evolutionist William King Gregory stated in a highly technical book<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03040525&id=EyF3qtMDRlgC&pg=RA2-PA351 ''The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition''], William King Gregory, 1922, p. 351.</ref> that he published doubts, shared by colleagues, in 1914 about whether the jaw and teeth were associated with the braincase. That 1914 journal article said that someone at the British Museum had confided to him that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized" and "planted in the gravel bed to fool the scientists." Also in 1922, a book aimed at the popular market was depicting elaborate speculation about the daily life of Piltdown Man, giving him a tool. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>  Yet the Piltdown Man continued to be taught children in school, as in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].

In 1950 it was shown by the fluorine method of relative dating that the Piltdown mandible and cranial bones were considerably younger geologically than the Lower and Middle Pleistocene fossils said to have been found at the same site.<ref>[http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/radioactivedating_piltdown.html]</ref>  It is still not conclusively known who was behind the forgery.

In 1950 it was shown by the fluorine method of relative dating that the Piltdown mandible and cranial bones were considerably younger geologically than the Lower and Middle Pleistocene fossils said to have been found at the same site.<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/radioactivedating_piltdown.html</ref>  It is still not conclusively known who was behind the forgery.

== External Links ==

== External Links ==