Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

While I appreciate the reproach, I think

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth
The arrogance isn't helping. On either side.

is dangerously taking us down into false equivalence territory.

I see a large heap of nearly unintelligible logic games to “explain” why evolution doesn’t exist on the science-is-the-devil side and then others on the evolution-is-the-best-theory-we’ve-got side bend over backwards to give very long detailed responses, some more erudite than others, about how darn hard science is and that it’s not as simple as the false strawman makes it seem and by gosh those scientists are every day out there fighting the good fight.

I see no equivalence between the occasional ‘Sheesh, these anti-science guys are bonkers’ and ‘Science is a lie, forget all you’re taught. Repent before it’s too late and come live with me in the hills without running water!’ (Made up quotes here, but this is meant more to paraphrase the whole conversation).

Then to hear, tsk, tsk, now let’s make sure we all elevate our conversation, including you science-defense guys (and gals!) with your arrogance, I think props up the anti-science side as actually trying to make coherent points, which they aren't. Though not mentioned in your post, I would agree that there are some words that should be stricken from the conversation, like "ignorant" which I think is heavily overused. I would prefer the word "unenlightened."

Otherwise, great points about how one type (of many) anti-intellectual propaganda is effective and that no one is actually saying that drawings and models are perfectly accurate. They are meant to explain super-duper complicated things in as simple a way as possible.

The drawings and models all should have an asterisk or a warning sign saying “This is an artistic rendering and is only as good as the underlying available data, and therefore is prone to inherent bias. This may very well be totally inaccurate and is meant more to spark your curiosity in science.”

The drawings and models are only a window into the underlying science, just as artistic drawings of planets near other stars are not likely to be accurate nor are artistic drawings of subatomic particles.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth
The arrogance isn't helping. On either side.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

As are some of those who won't fall for it. It's still very effective on the majority though. And you can spot fairly easily who have fallen for it the most (or who's been affected the most by this technique).

Source, article in my signature, here's some more:

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ... one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Since this subject came up in this thread:

Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics.*

*: Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
...
TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

▪ Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”47

47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

Source: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

I do agree with you that arrogance can definitely come from both sides. That being said, however, I haven't seen any outright arrogance from the side fighting on the side of evolution. I see a lot of arrogance coming from the side fighting against evolution. Those that have posted in favor of evolution have (at least from the majority of posts here that I have viewed) offered some form of evidence or literary/researched source. In my estimation, that is not arrogance. No one is bragging about the knowledge they are presenting, aside from those that are arguing against evolution with the whole "I'm right because I said so" based argument. As well, Jaden isn't short of the blatantly arrogant "I'm smart, check the IQ score I have" comments.

So, the statement of "arrogance from either side doesn't help"..I get that. I agree with this. However, I don't see it occurring in copious amounts from those that are providing actual researched substantiation.

a reply to: Ineilio


Very well stated. We need more people like you posting here.

originally posted by: Ineilio
While I appreciate the reproach, I think

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth
The arrogance isn't helping. On either side.

is dangerously taking us down into false equivalence territory.

I see a large heap of nearly unintelligible logic games to “explain” why evolution doesn’t exist on the science-is-the-devil side and then others on the evolution-is-the-best-theory-we’ve-got side bend over backwards to give very long detailed responses, some more erudite than others, about how darn hard science is and that it’s not as simple as the false strawman makes it seem and by gosh those scientists are every day out there fighting the good fight.

I see no equivalence between the occasional ‘Sheesh, these anti-science guys are bonkers’ and ‘Science is a lie, forget all you’re taught. Repent before it’s too late and come live with me in the hills without running water!’ (Made up quotes here, but this is meant more to paraphrase the whole conversation).

Then to hear, tsk, tsk, now let’s make sure we all elevate our conversation, including you science-defense guys (and gals!) with your arrogance, I think props up the anti-science side as actually trying to make coherent points, which they aren't. Though not mentioned in your post, I would agree that there are some words that should be stricken from the conversation, like "ignorant" which I think is heavily overused. I would prefer the word "unenlightened."

Otherwise, great points about how one type (of many) anti-intellectual propaganda is effective and that no one is actually saying that drawings and models are perfectly accurate. They are meant to explain super-duper complicated things in as simple a way as possible.

The drawings and models all should have an asterisk or a warning sign saying “This is an artistic rendering and is only as good as the underlying available data, and therefore is prone to inherent bias. This may very well be totally inaccurate and is meant more to spark your curiosity in science.”

The drawings and models are only a window into the underlying science, just as artistic drawings of planets near other stars are not likely to be accurate nor are artistic drawings of subatomic particles.

Again, beautifully, beautifully put. I'll even admit that I find myself using the word 'ignorant'. And I can see why it could be deemed as overused wordage or could be misconstrued as offering only insult. 'Unenlightened' is definitely a veritable way to put it. So, I'll have to watch myself and my usage on that world.

In the end, I can only hope for the actual hope that others that are 'unenlightened' as you put it, find their way from the holy books and find their way to a science book.

Again, great post!

Some great posts in here lately. Yes, nothing says arrogance like agreeing with something that can be tested and verified by experts. The nerve of you people! It is definitely not arrogant in the least to blindly believe an ancient book with unknown origins as absolute truth and use it to justify denouncing knowledge learned from the scientific testing performed by experts, without even looking at the science itself. Gotta love it. They are totally honest, humble and super intelligent! They wouldn't say that if it wasn't true, I swear!

originally posted by: Barcs
Some great posts in here lately. Yes, nothing says arrogance like agreeing with something that can be tested and verified by experts. The nerve of you people! It is definitely not arrogant in the least to blindly believe an ancient book with unknown origins as absolute truth and use it to justify denouncing knowledge learned from the scientific testing performed by experts, without even looking at the science itself. Gotta love it. They are totally honest, humble and super intelligent! They wouldn't say that if it wasn't true, I swear!

I was reading your post and your first sentence made me smile, as I agree there are a lot of good points. But then I continued reading and I started to feel ill, wanting to shake my head and roll my eyes into the next county....but then I continued to read even more and realized.....Ooohhh...Haha.

Touché...

a reply to: Barcs


You know the drill around here. It's just business as usual. It's like an ineloquent, Ken Ham version of Shakespeare's works. The script stays the same, it's just a new cast of characters reading the same lines with all the passion and zeal of a 70's Exploitation or Grindhouse film.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs


You know the drill around here. It's just business as usual. It's like an ineloquent, Ken Ham version of Shakespeare's works. The script stays the same, it's just a new cast of characters reading the same lines with all the passion and zeal of a 70's Exploitation or Grindhouse film.

Haha. I love this, actually made me chuckle.

seeing some wonderful closing arguments here. its a shame that they are wasted like pearls before swine. not that i would call any disagreeing parties swine, only that they have demonstrated multiples of multiple times (see my sig) that they do not care. this is an exercise in faith for some, and a comedy routine for others. they will not be convinced and your energy is better spent informing those who are already on the path to a better understanding.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
seeing some wonderful closing arguments here. its a shame that they are wasted like pearls before swine. not that i would call any disagreeing parties swine, only that they have demonstrated multiples of multiple times (see my sig) that they do not care. this is an exercise in faith for some, and a comedy routine for others. they will not be convinced and your energy is better spent informing those who are already on the path to a better understanding.

It's definitely a breath of fresh air to see so many new posts from so many knowledgeable people. I love reading all these well thought out posts. All the while, it does bite the big one that it still will always feel like tacking jello to a tree when trying to inform the uninformed who are not willing to budge from their faith.

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth All the while, it does bite the big one that it still will always feel like tacking jello to a tree when trying to inform the uninformed who are not willing to budge from their faith.

I don't see it as about changing the minds of the Kool-Aid drinking true believers. That's just not going to happen, as evident by the fact it's always the same posters making the same intellectually bankrupt "arguments" (and that's me being very charitable) ad nauseam. However, there are the silent readers who are either on the fence or simply aren't aware of the massive chasm in evidence and intellectual honesty between the two sides. Perhaps they will change their mind and become more diligent in the defense of science when they see how dishonest and willfully ignorant those who deny science truly are.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth All the while, it does bite the big one that it still will always feel like tacking jello to a tree when trying to inform the uninformed who are not willing to budge from their faith.

I don't see it as about changing the minds of the Kool-Aid drinking true believers. That's just not going to happen, as evident by the fact it's always the same posters making the same intellectually bankrupt "arguments" (and that's me being very charitable) ad nauseam. However, there are the silent readers who are either on the fence or simply aren't aware of the massive chasm in evidence and intellectual honesty between the two sides. Perhaps they will change their mind and become more diligent in the defense of science when they see how dishonest and willfully ignorant those who deny science truly are.

That is an excellent way of looking at it. You're so right, even for myself...I lurked for so many years, just reading before committing to actually create an account and contribute. So, we can easily assume that there are so many others who visit the site without making the move towards becoming an actual poster.

a reply to: GetHyped

I am not sure many of us are here to change their minds. I know I am here to be the voice of reason, that someone who is unsure MIGHT listen too. In the end, An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil

a reply to: peter vlar

So true, Peter. It basically has become a comedy act, in my eyes. That's why I still love this site after all these years. I especially love the dude that posts exclusively Jehovah's Witness propaganda and right in the signature it says, "Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!" He warns you ahead of time that he is a parody.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: GetHyped

I am not sure many of us are here to change their minds. I know I am here to be the voice of reason, that someone who is unsure MIGHT listen too. In the end, An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil

It would be quite a feat to convert the converted. Ha.

And I agree. I would like to see it as being the little voice of reason that may or may not creep into their brain. The mind is always open to suggestion. (I can only hope, at least)

And in the end, if all we continue to get is more unfounded "rebuttals", then I can at least say it was good for a laugh.

originally posted by: Ineilio
... no one is actually saying that drawings and models are perfectly accurate. They are meant to explain super-duper complicated things in as simple a way as possible.

I disagree that no one is arguing the first part of the quotation above. Allthough it's rare among the experts it does occasionally happen among the flock because of the way the experts or teachers won't emphasize the bolded part of my quotation when they're using these drawings and models in their teachings, conveniently leaving it out of their indoctrination routine or having it in figurative fineprint*, somehere where it won't be noticed much or so that people won't think through the implication of them still using these models and drawings in spite of being aware of what I quoted, which isn't exactly the same as what you said. I bolded something in my last comment for a reason. Could you explain to me what's so explanatory (or honest, or simple) about something (or a technique) that is "heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, ...invalid" and "misleading"? That's quite a different way to describe these drawings and models than just "not perfectly accurate" (perfect accuracy isn't the point here but functions as a nice red herring from that bolded point, whether intended as such or not). * Figurative fineprint: this would include rephrasing the problem in their argumentation to "not perfectly accurate" (or any variation of the philosophy of agnostic vagueness applied to the word "science" or "scientific method") to downplay the fact/truth/certainty that it's "misleading" (intentionally deceptive with that attitude and behaviour attached to it). And here is where the flock usually goes with the cop-out "oh, but that's just his opinion" (the fact that it's "misleading", "heavily biased", "grossly inaccurate", etc.).

I still call it deliberate deception if one knows this and still uses the technique in textbooks without sharing that rather important caveat (and I would find it questionable to continue using it in spite of acknowledging that caveat since it remains "heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, ...invalid" and "misleading" with or without that acknowledgement and in spite of people's opinions about it either way, you call it explanatory, I think your opinion is rather flawed and unjustified, unreasonable, not supported by logical arguments that this is merely what it is and how it is used, I can clearly see or make the same observations and arrive at the same conclusions as the expert from Australia who works in this particular field and who made these acknowledgements).

This is why I call it (or have concluded that it is) propaganda or having an agenda. Not telling the whole story. Using half-truths, leaving out inconvenient facts. Giving the facts/truths your own spin ("misleading" and "grossly inaccurate" becomes "not perfectly accurate" and 'merely explaining things in a simplified manner', which is obviously much less of a big deal).

Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

Or in short, I find it completely unacceptable and deliberately deceptive (propagandistic) to continue using these drawings and models in textbooks at all. They have no basis in "science/knowledge"; which means a familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities. Not philosophies/ideas, stories and biased fiction/imagination. They are not merely "not perfectly accurate", they are entirely misleading and "grossly inaccurate" and should not be used to prop up and sell a myth and old Pagan philosophy as "science" or "scientific theory". There's nothing scientific about these drawings and models (and the only thing they explain or demonstrate is how some people are prepared to resort to propagandistic marketing methods to sell their philosophies as "science" or under the label "science"). The video below uses the phrase "bending the data to fit in with their biased beliefs", which I kinda like as well in relation to this issue and many similar methods used by evolutionists in their presentations and teachings:

Just to be clear, there are also quite a few things in the video above that I don't like or would have liked to see rephrased, eg. at 4:53-5:01 and 8:15-8:29, 8:32-8:37 and 9:13-9:19, there's nothing "pathetic" about our brains, the real point he's trying to make there isn't made clear anyway).

a reply to: whereislogic

I disagree that experts or teachers are saying the drawings are perfectly accurate. Or conversely if they don’t say anything on the topic, that they are complicit in a grand lie. Similarly I don’t fault the full recreation of Noah’s Ark at the creationist museum as a grand lie because they don’t have properly visible disclaimers saying that it isn’t the *actual ark.* Rather I fault them because they are professing an “indoctrination routine” on their “flock” through intentional misinformation without any compelling evidence. I don’t give a hoot about how accurate their ark is as it’s irrelevant regarding the underlying science as to whether all kinds of animals boarded a boat two by two. Coincidentally when you use words and phrases like “flock” and “indoctrination routine,” it is a way to infuse propaganda into the conversation. Just saying.

I agree that some images may be “grossly inaccurate, …invalid” and “misleading.” I present to you one that I believe meets that very definition.

This velociraptor is very, very wrong. He needs feathers. All those textbooks, and movies, that once had this type of image or many others of certain dinosaurs without feathers misleads us to think that they were “lizard-like” when they looked much more like birds. So now we have images like this

which also are likely misleading, potentially even “grossly” so, in ways we don’t yet fully understand, such as coloring and body mechanics. It doesn’t prove to me any malintent or deliberate deception even if I’m shown the image without any accompanying clarification that it is a picture of an extinct creature and therefore just an artist’s interpretation.

So now we know that the earlier picture of the velociraptor was misleading, so they made a better (likely also misleading, invalid and inaccurate in ways we don’t fully grasp) picture. But gosh, our human brains sure love a good picture, as opposed to just a scattering of meaningless bones in a box or long boring text for hundreds of pages. The pictures really get those synapses firing and help us understand complicated things. We have pictures and graphs to represent almost everything we do in life and really we could not possibly learn much of anything unless we are able to create an “image” of it in our minds. You call that some grand conspiracy by textbook authors, whereas I call it just understanding how the brain works. Removing representations of things in textbooks is anti-intellectual and meant to make science less approachable.

Regardless, this does *not* prove that all the underlying paleontology literature with its archive of bones and imprints of feathers needs to be burned and we should call the whole of evolution bogus because of poorly drawn pictures. In fact, doing so is a gross over exaggeration because that sad, outdated picture has no bearing on the actual research being done.

Yet somehow because something can be acknowledged, like the existence of poor representations of extinct creatures, that this can be conflated with the doom of evolutionary biology. It’s not a solid argument, and adding grand schemes of conspiracy to make it seem more plausible doesn’t do so. It makes it seem less credible. That is, if you are looking at the logic of the argument. You know, Occam’s razor and such.

a reply to: Ineilio
Please stop trying to change my points to your straw man version of them (either for yourself, in your own mind, or for others in public in your commentary and what you choose to respond to or say something about).

I disagree that experts or teachers are saying the drawings are perfectly accurate.

How much more clear did I needed to be that "not perfectly accurate" isn't the point here. Or that I wasn't suggesting that experts or teachers are saying that they are perfectly accurate (and again, it's trivial whether or not they are saying that, not the point). You're still going to stick with your straw man version of the point I was making in spite of everything that I said to make it clear that your straw man or spin to 'not perfectly accurate" as opposed to "grossly inaccurate" and "misleading" wasn't the point I was making? What a surprise...

I agree that some images may be “grossly inaccurate, …invalid” and “misleading.” I present to you one that I believe meets that very definition.

The topic was "TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN", as forensics expert Carl N. Stephen pointed out as well by saying "The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” And in spite of that the fact remains that:

Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

That's not honest if you are very well aware that "the faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested" and that the models and drawings that are currently used are "grossly inaccurate", "heavily biased", "invalid" and "misleading" because "these depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair." That's an agenda, it's biased (their myth and philosophy erronuously referred to as a scientific theory is what is driving the so-called 'evidence' they present, instead of the other way around). Why no disclaimer under every drawing mentioning those terms in the textbooks? This is called propaganda, leaving out facts you are very well aware of but are inconvenient for marketing your philosophies and speculations as science. There often isn't even a disclaimer reminding the students that they are "not perfectly accurate". Let alone that they are "invalid" and "misleading", or to use your spin again, "may be" invalid (promoting the agnostic philosophy of vagueness some more, as if you can't be sure about it, therefore, it's ok to keep using them when following your agenda without any disclaimer or caveat emphasized).

Am I the only one who considers it important to be honest about the fact that they are "invalid" and "misleading"? For me that's sufficient reason to not use them at all in textbooks claiming to present "science". But the very least bit of honesty that can be shown is that a critic doesn't first have to draw out these descriptions of all these drawings and models before you can get a "may be...some"* out of someone who is selling this story told in the form of biasedly drawn pictures with no basis in reality ("invalid", "grossly inaccurate").

*: + red herring example to distract or downplay the heavily biased propagandistic nature of the drawings and models of ape-men in textbooks, all of them. As if by somehow showing an example where you believe it's even worse (the inaccuracy, the invalidness) somehow makes it less of an issue with the other drawings (those of ape-men or so-called human ancestors). Your example itself was heavily biased towards selling the proto-feather and bird to reptile evolutionary substory and myth told in evolutionary philosophies anyway. The supposed 'evidence' for the 2nd depiction of velociraptor you used is just as shaky, speculative and heavily biased as the drawings and models of ape-men.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ineilio
I'll leave you people be in this forum, never an honest reply or thought anyway here. Pardon my cynicism and impatience.

I'm sure being a propaganda and logic expert you are aware that you are attempting an ad hominem attack. A logical fallacy (that folks tend to lean on when a valid argument is lacking). I would also hope you know that a logical fallacy is not an honest logic argument, though it is always effective as a propaganda tool.

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

To my eye, much of your response was in a similar vein. But, if your supposed straw man is due to gradation of the inaccurate information, like some small inaccuracy is clearly fine, but larger ones are broadly indefensible or alternatively that all inaccuracies are entirely indefensible in human evolution, I'm more than happy to head down that road with you. For the record though, I don't think it changes my argument and I don't find a lot of straw there.

But as you say, you are out and on to bigger and better things, so why should I invest the energy?

Otherwise, adieu, arrivederci, so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night.

a reply to: Ineilio
It's boring to see the usual cherry-picking of parts in my comment that you can hammer on and use against me as I expected when I read my own comment back (and decided to edit out to avoid you doing the predictable, no need to encourage that any further).

Still tip-toeing around the actual points I'm making.

Nice dancing moves though, very subtle and graceful:

You call that some grand conspiracy by textbook authors,...

Nope, I didn't. That's one of those little convenient twists to fight a straw man argument or Don Quijote windmill giant. Well conditioned by the Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. types and fans. My points are clear and nowhere have I been talking about "some grand conspiracy". People that are financially and emotionally dependent on a set of philosophies marketed as "science" or "scientific theory" and have invested quite a bit of time, effort and money in a career that is dependent on adherence to how these philosophies are marketed are not conspiring together. It's part of many people's nature to look out for themselves first regardless of concerns for honesty with oneself or others (example: Trump). That people have Trump-like character attributes is not a big secret (or conspiracy either).

By the way...

Regardless, this does *not* prove that all the underlying paleontology literature with its archive of bones and imprints of feathers needs to be burned and we should call the whole of evolution bogus because of poorly drawn pictures.

Besides the fact that this is another straw man argument of the points I was making (in no manner is this example of "textbook drawings and models of ape-men" sufficient reason for me to conclude that all evolutionary philosophies are wrong or did I suggest that this one example should be considered as such), your house of cards (bad arguments and so-called evidence which you describe as "underlying paleontology literature with its archive of bones and imprints of feathers") doesn't work in providing actual conclusive evidence for evolutionary philosophies (any of them, which you call "the whole of evolution"). It's one propagandistic card after another, one twist after another, one scientific fraud after another. And make no mistake, faking pictures and drawings is a fraud:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

Another evolutionist pointing out the exact same problem regarding fossils rather than just drawings. It's across the board. It's a house of cards all with the same major problem:

nothing is conclusive/definitive/factual/certain/true/absolute.

And that's why they quickly argue "science does not deal with absolutes". But that's a falsehood/lie and contradiction in terms. Because "science" is the synonym for "knowledge" (derived from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge" which is a familiarity with facts, i.e. that which is factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/definitive).

Is "an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story", it's also dishonest when presented in textbooks (or anywhere else) as if it's "science", which is exactly what is happening in spite of those doing that being aware of what Henry Gee is pointing out, that's the part that makes it dishonest. They simply don't care, they're going to sell their bedtime story in that manner anyway, just like with the drawings and models of ape-men and the reptile to bird evolutionary pathway (or lineage to use Henry Gee's terminology). Just draw the pictures based on the storyline and line up the fossils based on the storyline. The storyline should not come first, it should not be the basis for their how they line up the fossils and how they're going to draw the pictures, that's called doing things according to an agenda, not a scientific method.