Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Of
Chicken Giblets:
A Critical Appraisal
Of Anthropology
copyright 1983
by
Malcolm B. Mathieson, Jr.
2
To keep this simple, let’s limit this paper to just a couple of chapters from one
anthropology text. The text I have chosen is People of the Earth, an Introduction to
World Prehistory, Brian Fagan, 4th ed., Little, Brown, and Co., 1983. According to
the author, this text is in use in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and Africa, as well
as the U.S. And it is in its fourth edition. Pretty solid acceptance by the academic
community, wouldn’t you say?
Enough already. You get the idea, right? I assure you that I can easily double that
list if you like. The abundance of “weasel words” allows all sorts of sweeping
statements without tying one down to anything. Let’s look at specific problems
now.
I. p. 68, par. 2: “We cannot tell from fossil bones when human speech first
appeared, for detailed relationships between skeletal structure and soft tissue are
lost forever.”
Not only does Fagan indulge the speculation he denounced, but he speculates on
a subject he himself admits is “lost forever”. And what is the use of quoting a
linguist on the relation between the origin of speech and the origin of bipedal
movement? Fagan also notes that “many scholars disagree” with Hockett’s
speculation. Fagan gives no indication of his own position. He is merely recording
rumors.
II. Read again the above quote about soft tissue. Now read the following:
A. p. 71 par. 2: “These…were powerful, heavily muscled individuals, thought
to be as strong as chimpanzees.”
C. p. 89 fig. 5.2: “It is probable that their vision was excellent and that they
were capable of extensive thought.”
4
What Fagan the scientist, the non-priest, has done is to vigorously denounce a
heresy and then indulge it to the limit. In religious circles they call this hypocrisy.
III. p. 61 par. 5: “The only way in which we can obtain insights into the evolution of
human behavior is by studying living apes to identify the kinds of behavior that
distinguished early human populations from their ape relatives.”
Sounds logical, no? But wait:
p.35 par.3: “Archaeologists have been comparing prehistoric societies with
living peoples for over a century…Such direct comparisons…are no longer
made…there are too many uncontrollable variables…”
Prehistoric blood, like other prehistoric soft tissue, is lost forever. Therefore, it’s
safe ground for speculation - there’s that word again - since no one can offer
contradictory evidence. If you have, a priori, accepted the theory of uniform
evolution, then you might build a hypothesis on this. Rephrase the statement,
though, and its silliness becomes obvious:
This is known as circular reasoning. Try it in court some time. While we’re talking
about dating artifacts, let’s look at carbon-14 dating, widely known as the most
accurate method:
Radically is right. Do you know that the corrections they are admitting right now
run as high as 20%? And if the last set of dates was wrong, how can we be sure
they’re right this time? Maybe we’d better try a different dating method. How about
potassium argon?
VI. p. 79 par. 1: the 1470 skull from East Turkana, which was originally dated to
2.9 million B.C….has now been reassigned to 1.8 million B.C., a date that leaves
much more time for the evolution of the human line…”
That’s a change of 38%! And did you notice, it changed in the direction that favors
the hypothesis? Once again, if the original was off that much, how do we know
that the latest guess isn’t off by even more? This is especially so with potassium
argon dating - that skull was not dated, only some lava fragments in the same
area - an area notable for earth movements. Incidentally, the “laws” of
association and superposition are hypotheses, not laws. We don’t know that
uniform evolution is a fact; that’s what we’re seeking evidence for. If you assume
uniformity to “prove” the dating method that supports uniformity, you’re reasoning
in circles again. Remember the blood albumin example?
But I’m not the only one who thinks the evidence is very poor - so does Fagan!
Look:
Have you noticed that the experts keep fighting among themselves? Look:
VIII p. 77 par. 2: “…the question of how the first humans evolved generates
arguments so fiery that no two specialists can agree on the answer…”
Ahhh, and I’ve saved the best for last. Are you ready?
6
IX. p. 61 par. 4: “On savannah plains other primates were flourishing in small
bands, probably walking upright, and, conceivably, making tools.”
THE NEXT SENTENCE: “No fossil remains of these creatures have been
found…”