The 2 June, 2006, edition of New Scientist magazine carried an article by Deborah MacKenzie titled "Putting a face to a skull." The article discussed the unreliability of skull-based reconstructions. Based on an investigation by German police, the article once again revealed the scientific invalidity of the "reconstructions" -that represent a significant part of evolutionist propaganda concerning the fictitious human evolution.

The 2 June, 2006, edition of New Scientist magazine carried an article by Deborah MacKenzie titled "Putting a face to a skull." The article discussed the unreliability of skull-based reconstructions. Based on an investigation by German police, the article once again revealed the scientific invalidity of the "reconstructions" -that represent a significant part of evolutionist propaganda concerning the fictitious human evolution.

21 separate faces from 21 researchers for a single skull

According to the article in question, in January 2003 German police discovered a skull in a forest near Celle, north of Hannover. It was established that the owner of the skull was male, aged 56 at death. Yet despite two years having gone by the identity of the skull’s owner had still not been determined. Just at that time, a conference was being held in Germany. The participants were forensic artists specializing in producing a face based on the skull alone. The police sought to make use of this opportunity and asked for help from the specialists participating in the conference in order to establish the identity of the owner of the Celle skull. A total of 21 researchers agreed and began working to produce a reconstruction of the skull. The results of these works were presented at International Conference on Reconstruction of Soft Facial Parts, held in Leuven in Belgium three years later. Yet these results, published in May, 2006, were not at all what the police had been expecting. Each of the 21 faces produced by the 21 different researchers were totally different to one another. (See Picture 1) As a result, the identity of the Celle skull could not be established.

The work on the Celle skull was performed by 21 expert researchers in the field, using the most advanced techniques and technology. Although all the skull bones were present and the specialists employed the most up-to-date methods, the fact that they produced 21 completely different facial reconstructions shows that they do not reflect the true facts. These faces are produced not on the basis of scientific criteria, but on the intuitions and imaginations of the artists rebuilding them.

These results gave rise to the following comment regarding the reconstruction technique in New Scientist:

Even though facial reconstruction is widely used for difficult cases, this represented the largest experimental test to date for the technique. One thing it clearly shows is that the field, which has historically been the province of police artists, remains more art than science. That needs to change, says Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Dundee in the UK. "We need to work by rules, not intuition." (emphasis added)

This article in New Scientist also constitutes an important caution on the subject of evolutionist propaganda. Because evolutionists make widespread use of reconstructions especially in their human evolution propaganda. This they do by filling the gaps that cannot be filled scientifically in the reconstruction of a face by using their own preconceptions.

Scientific gaps being filled with evolutionist prejudices

In the conclusion to the New Scientist article, it is stated that there is no scientifically reliable relationship between the skull bones and the facial tissue, and that the shape of the skull provides no predictions regarding that of the upper lip, for instance. Richard Neave of the University of Manchester in UK comments that “There are many spaces in a face you don"t have the science to fill in.” Evolutionist propaganda thus makes us of these spaces that science cannot fill, as Neave describes them, and evolutionist reconstruction artists fill them will their own preconceptions. Despite the fact that the bones of a skull provide no information about the lip and ear structure or facial expressions of the life form to which they belong, evolutionist reconstruction artists produce these with semi-human, semi-ape features. One striking example of this that comes to mind is the words of the reconstruction artist John Gurche, cited in National Geographic magazine. Gurche is an artist whose ape-man reconstructions frequently grace the pages of evolutionist publications. National Geographic, in turn, is the evolutionist publication that makes perhaps the most intensive use in the world of reconstruction-based propaganda. In an article published in the March 1996 edition of National Geographic, Gurche comments on the facial reconstruction of an extinct species of ape (Australopithecus afarensis) and the expressions this bestowed on it. Gurche’s words clearly reveal the preconceptions of the evolutionists drawing the reconstructed faces:

“I wanted to get a human soul into this ape like face, to indicate something about where he was headed.” (Artist John Gurche, National Geographic, March 1996, p. 109.)

Reconstructions are of enormous importance to evolutionist propaganda. The majority of the fictitious ape-men we see in newspapers, magazines and on the television are reconstructions drawn or modelled from “inspiration” from discovered skull fossils, or even of a single bone fragment. Since evolutionists are unable to find any scientific evidence to corroborate their theories, they seek to keep their theory alive by means of propaganda in which these reconstructions are an important component. The developments concerning the Celle skull not only once again reveal the unreliability of reconstructions, but also the invalidity of evolutionist propaganda.

To briefly recapitulate the important points in this reconstruction-based evolutionist propaganda; since the fossil records concerning the origin of man are generally scattered and incomplete, any guesswork concerning these is totally based on the power of the imagination. For that reason, reconstructions produced by evolutionists on the basis of fossil remains are completely designed according to the requirements of evolutionist ideology. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University anthropologist emphasises this in the words, "I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data." (Dr David Pilbeam [Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA], "Rearranging our family tree". Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.) Since people are particularly prone to being influenced by visual images, the aim is to make them believe that the life forms reconstructed using the power of the imagination did once really exist.

So far have evolutionists gone in their imaginary reconstructions that they are sometimes able to give very different faces to the same fossil skull. Three totally different reconstructions drawn for the fossil Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus) are a well-known instance of this.

One point needs to be noted here: only the very general lines of the object to hand can be produced in studies based on bone fragments. The fact is, however, that the truly distinguishing characteristics are the soft tissues that gradually vanish over the course of time. It is easy for someone who believes in evolution to shape these soft tissues as he or she wishes and produce an imaginary life form. Earnst A. Hooton from Harvard University describes the position:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions. (Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332.)

Conclusion

This article in New Scientist reveals that reconstruction is much more of art than science and that no scientifically acceptable link can be established between the skull structure and the soft tissues. Although tens of specialists used the most advanced technologies and techniques, their efforts to produce a scientific method with regard to reconstruction were unsuccessful. While this development, reveals that reconstructed faces are not scientific, it also pulls off the scientific mask from the face of evolutionist propaganda.