After publishing Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man, a big campaign was initiated to find out the fossils that would possibly be displayed as an evidence for the theory. Archaeologists started looking for the fossils of imaginary creatures called transitional forms. For decades, they dug different parts of the earth to prove their point with no success. Their disappointment eventually led them to the forgery of Piltdown man. In 1912, the English biologist Charles Dawson fitted an orangutan jaw to a human skull and exhibited it as a transitional form between human and ape. It became evident only after 37 years that the Piltdown man which was exhibited in British Museum as the biggest evidence for evolution, was solely a forgery. Yet, more sophisticated forgery methods were being developed by evolutionists.
In the meantime, some evolutionists held strongly the idea that there existed some living fossils. According to the belief, if mankind had ape-like ancestors, there should still, in some part of the world, be some semi-human beings who still have not completed the evolution process. Towards the end of the 1800s, the victims were found. The native inhabitants of Tanzania, called Aborigines were designated as living evidences of evolution. Even Ernest Haeckel got into the act with Darwin and others.
The different orbit structure and the relatively heavy lower jaw of Aborigines were the main reasons of why these human beings were defined as transitional forms. Evolutionist archaeologists and many fossil-hunters who joined them, set out to dig the graves of Aborigines and take the skulls to western evolutionist museums. Soon, the skulls were distributed to each one of the institutions, schools in the West as the confirmation of evolution.
The fossil-hunters did not hesitate to become skull-hunters when the number of graves were not enough to meet their needs. Since Aborigines served as transitional forms, they had to be regarded as animals rather than human beings. For the sake of the development of science, the lives of Aborigines could be sacrificed just as guinea pigs!
Skull-hunters killed Aborigines and legitimized this act asserting that they were doing it for science. The skulls of the hunted natives were sold to museums after some chemical reactions that would make them look old. The skulls with bullet holes were filled in with utmost attention. According to Creation Magazine published in Australia, a group of observers that came in from South Galler were shocked when they saw that dozens of women, children and men were killed by evolutionists. Forty five skulls were chosen among the killed Aborigines, the flesh of them were set aside and boiled. The best ten were packaged to be sent to England.
Today, thousands of skulls of Aborigines are still in the warehouse of Smithsonian Institution. Some of these skulls belong to the corpses dug from the graves where as some others are the skulls of innocent people killed to prove evolution.
There were also African victims of the evolutionist violence. The most famous one was the pigmy Ota Benga who was taken to the world of the white men to be displayed as a transitional form. Oto Benga was caught in 1904 by a researcher Samuel Verner in Kongo then a colony of Belgium. The native whose name meant friend in his native language, was married and had two kids. Yet he was chained, put into a cage and sent by a boat to the evolutionist scientists who within the same year displayed him in the St. Louis World Fair together with other monkey species as the closest transitional form to humankind. Two years later, he was taken to Branx Zoo in New York where he was, this time displayed as one of the ancestors of human beings together with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orangutan called Dohung. Dr. William T. Hornaday, the director of the zoo who was also a fanatical evolutionist delivered long speeches about how he was proud of having such a precious transitional form. The guests, on the other hand, treated Ota Benga as an ordinary animal. Ota Benga could not bear the treatment he received and committed suicide.
You can even buy this book at Amazon.com. The link I leave here has a book review on this book. I want you to notice the evolutionist that wrote the review about halfway down the page. He's trying to defend evolution by saying Ota Benga was not used for evolution evidence, when in fact it is recorded in history books, as well as sites I've listed above, as known education. Again, this shows how the evolutionist will go to great extremes to lie and cover up what they did, and what evolution is really about. Here's the link: Amazon.com
Note: Since putting up this page, and leaving that link. Evolutionists have requested that Amazon.com remove the comments made by one of them. And Amazon.com has done just that. So when you click on that link, you will only see positive remarks, minus the negative one. I apologize for that, but it goes to show the extremes evolutionist will go to, to cover this up. I would not be surprised if they tried to get the whole page removed. I have learned that unless I bring over such info, and put it here, it gets deleted or changed as you see. This is why on some web-pages you will notice that I include the link as well as what was said. What happened here is why I do just that.
Ota Benga was not the only human put on display for evolution:
Since evolution was not an ordinary scientific theory or a hypothesis but an ideology that had to be certainly proved, its defenders committed or confirmed such massacres without the slightest hesitation. To verify the lie, even massacre seemed to be legitimate for them.
That is because this lie was the basis of the world order set up by them and different ideologies attributed to the other.
Here we see Aborigines turning to run as they realize they are fixing to be hunted. The pictures you see here are some of the only few left of this tribe. A whole race wiped out because of a theory and mind set of that time. A time Darwin lived in. A mindset that affected his writings. If scientists were even sorry for what happened, and did not want to promote today what happened back then. They should have changed the evolution chart, so at least there would be no racism promoted from it. But it's the same, because they try and carry that same mindset. My question is: Who's next?
Here are recent evolutionist depictions of what lower races looked like that are being displayed in a museum today:
So as you can see that even today racism through skin color is still being promoted through Evolution. Notice the hair in the pictures above. The hair evolves from the kind that black people have, to the kind that white people have. Is there really any evidence that early man had kinky hair? Nope, not one shred. So why do you think they use that here? Also notice the nose on these early human figures.
This should answer the question of whether evolutionists have become politically correct in their theory. They have not. And will not because evolution is about hate, and separation of man kind through racism.
Still don't believe evolution is racist? Name one type monkey, chimp, or ape that has kinky hair?
There is no monkey type animal that has kinky hair here!
Have evolutionists learned from past history?
Pic of the human zoo display.
It would seem not. In Janaury of 2007 a human zoo was on display in Australia.(link) Was this idea, for a publicity show, from the past history of Evolution? Or is Evolution doomed to repeat it's on history as Darwinists get deperate to prove the unprovable? Also notice here they do not use black people. Which from all the other ways they have used examples, this would not be considered the norm. It might be because over there AIG (Answers in Genesis) has a strong influence in Australia because Ken Ham is from there. So for once evolution is not being portrayed as racist towards blacks. Because they knew where that would lead.
This was a movie made based on events surrounding the hunting and killing of the Australian Aborigines. Tom Selleck stars as a professional gun for hire. He is hired to hunt something, but they don't tell him what until he has committed to do it. He decides other wise, so the ones who hired him decide to kill him instead. Tom Selleck is a long range sharp shooter in this film. As he decides to pick off his would be killers one by one from a far off. The movie has a surprise ending as well.
So when evolutionists try and claim it never happened. Ask them: why was a movie was made about these events?
Side note: I was watching a special on t.v. on evolution. Not an old film. In fact a very recent one that is used in schools. In one part of the film I just had to laugh. They were comparing humans to chimps, and when they were showing the pics of chimps running around, and then humans running around. Guess what the example was? Blacks. And worse of all, they were showing black children, and comparing pics with young chimps. Though there were no direct wording to why or what they were showing. I got the message loud and clear. It was not until the comparison stopped, that white children were shown. And after that, another chimp picture was not shown. Hide it as they might try, the evidence is overwhelming and in front of everyone to see.
When I came back later to look at tv., another show was on about evolution. Guess who was the example again? Blacks. This time they were wide open with what they were implying. I could not believe my eyes. They were in the rain forest with a tribe of black people. And because they were primitive in their way of living, here again, an example for evolution. They showed how they could be taught a different way to do something. I bet I could teach them how to operate a computer. And would that prove evolution? I laugh at the hogwash they try and make us believe, and it is a shame that it shows that evolution has really not tried to pull itself from it.