What would anthropologists stand to gain from lying?

Question

In a lot of creationist/ID rants I always hear this "us and them" tinge that points to Anthropologists "lying" about evidence and or making stuff up. What would anthropologists or scientists in general stand to gain from lying? To me it seems like creationists are in a battle that only they are participating in.

Answer 1

Well they are in a battle that only they are participating in.  I may not know a ton about anthropology but I know a bit about religion.  Just because you don't care about them and want to study and come up with your own views doesn't matter.   Religions one basic principle seems to be the more people you force to see things your way the more valid your beliefs are.  Science on the other hand is based on facts and what you can prove and they don't try to force people into believing them based on beliefs, they use evidence to support their theorys.  Creationists have to attack anthropologists because they have nothing but their belief is God to support their side of things, its basicly a desporation move.  Something is different from your belief, its evil, the work of satan and must be lieing.

Answer 2

Hi Dord. I am not going to rant as I am not a creationist, neither am I a follower of any religion but I will answer your question as none of my forerunners here (in spite of all their ranting about Creationists) have attempted it. You ask : What would Anthropologists stand to gain from lying ? Well, the views of those who do not accept either  'Lucy' or the 'out of Africa' hypotheses are not being passed on to the wider community beyond the specialist academic enclaves, and it is suspected and in some cases has been proved,  that the opposing views are being deliberately suppressed in order to maximize the impact of the orthodox theories on schools, universities and the interested public at large. I hope this will do for now as it is my bedtime.

Answer 3

Well, go to the religion section and see the overwhelming atheist presence.  There is such a thing as an aggressive atheist who will go to any length to undo the faith of people. Yes, they equal out the aggressive theist but many theist assume that atheist lack morals and will pull any trick. I don't understand how 6 day creationist can base all their faith on the creation story but it must be the case. None of us are seeing the correct information because as time goes on more and more information will be available.  6 dayers are just using that to their advantage.  Hope I helped a little with understanding the mistrust.

Answer 4

creationist claims of "lying" have made you doubt the accused, not the accuser. That leads you away from trusting science.

Consider the quotes from a response to your post. In "( )" is more information:

"History is full of frauds and wishful thinking in regard to alleged missing links"

("Missing link" is a red herring. It suggests there have to be are required transitional forms., but consider wolves and dogs. Does anyone demand we find the "missing link"?)

"Piltdown man – complete fraud"

(Yes and it was never fully accepted. The bones were locked away and only casts were provided. There were always questions as no other finds ever appeared and once access to the bones was obtained the fraud was exposed. This is more like science discovering the lie, not covering it up.)

Java man - a few teeth, and a few skull and bone fragments (wishful thinking/fraud)

Nebraska man - a pigs tooth (wishful thinking/fraud)

(I first found this claim in a 1970s religious tract called "Big Brother" A bit or research produced a quote from the person that discovered the tooth:

"The Hesperopithecus molar cannot be said to resemble any known type of human molar very closely. It is certainly not closely related to Pithecanthropus erectus in the structure of the molar crown… It is therefore a new and independent type of Primate, and we must seek more material before we can determine its relationships."

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/...

There's no claim that it was "Nebraska man." Primate maybe but not human)

"Australopithecene (Lucy) - portrayed with human like hands and feet despite the fact that it is known to have ape like hands and feet. Natural History Museum representation is fraudulent - deliberately misleading"

(Try as I might, nothing like this came up on a search. The nearest was a comparison of chimp, Australopithecene, and human but it's the skeletons only: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanen...

Finally: "Java man - a few teeth, and a few skull and bone fragments (wishful thinking/fraud)"

(This is Homo Erectus. Finds of this species were termed Java, Heidleburg and Perking Man. After study it was establsihed that's it the same species. The next creationist claim with Peking Man is that the bones were lost. Doggone they're partly right. At the start of WWII the original remains were moved to save them. Most report the Japanese captured the Marine escorts and the bones were lost. However, the remains of Homo Erectus are still being excavated. One dig produced the remains of 45 individuals.

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/...

So do anthropologists lie? Just as much as anyone else. Are they caught in their lies? Very, very often. The scientific method requires that you take the facts, make an explanation of the facts (termed the theory) and then have others look at them. The scientific method isn't followed by others.

Remember the evolution creation issue isn't a political race where making attack ads somehow makes your side "better."

Answer 5

Most of the time nothing... some may lie at times to try to get a publicity stunt, as there are bad apples in every bunch.  But the vast majority of scientists don't lie because they usually submit findings to peer review publications, and will have those findings ripped apart, sorted, reassembled, analyzed and examined inside and out before they are accepted.  They are then viewed as accepted theory, rather than facts, and the more they are supported, the more they are used as a jumping point for further study.  The Creationist / ID ranter cannot accept these as it goes against thier mindset of reality... it doesn't fit in the box, so it must not be real, and therefore, is a lie.  You are right that they are picking thier own fight.  Science isn't a religion, and doesn't try to convert people... it simply exists... reguardless if people like it or not.  Some science supporters and scientists try to educate the religious in the error of thier reality, but it's a hard thing to open a person's mind when they have been taught something for so long, and often with such ardent passion.  This is why we need to INSIST on teaching evolutional theory in schools at a young age.

Answer 6

Pick nameless as best answer, you won't get a better reply.

Answer 7

Anthropology has a sorry history of evolutionists lying.

History is full of frauds and wishful thinking in regard to alleged missing links:

Piltdown man – complete fraud

Java man - a few teeth, and a few skull and bone fragments (wishful thinking/fraud)

Nebraska man - a pigs tooth (wishful thinking/fraud)

Australopithecene (Lucy) - portrayed with human like hands and feet despite the fact that it is known to have ape like hands and feet. Natural History Museum representation is fraudulent - deliberately misleading)

Or take Haeckel's embryo's. A complete fraud yet *still* promoted in some textbooks as fact!http://creationontheweb.com/content/view...

Or take peppered moths.

Another fraud. http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/...

Fortunately most scientists are not deliberately fraudulent.

But many scientists use poor logic and unscientific arguments to attack people who have different assumptions and different interpretations of the same data.

For example Richard Dawkins use many ad hominem insults instead of debating the evidence. (And uses much poor logic)

As for creationists - show me an example of a creationist who has deliberately perpetrated a lie.

Answer 8

Scientist don't lie much because we get caught out by other scientists.

Anthropology is not a science and settles empirical questions politically. That can lead to the most inane nonsense accepted by anthropologists as valid.

Creationist, on the other hand, are living the lie and can never be taken on their word. If their mouths are moving then they are lying!

Sorry, you are wrong. The Anthropological Society of America votes on empirical issues. Why else was Derek Freeman censored for refuting Mead? Anthropology is a social science and until it abjures this practice it will remain one.

Science, on the other hand, has the competition of hypothesis where ideas are attacked; not people. This leads to a peer review process that is actual in its intent, not political in process.

I suggest that what is not accurate is your appreciation of this dichotomy.