Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory

573 Pages·2003·3.091 MB·English

by  Michael A. Cremo

Table
of
Contents

INTRODUCTION
Ascended
Apes
or
Fallen
Angels?
Forbidden
 Archeology:
 The
 Hidden
 History
 of
 the
Human
Race
The
Extreme
Antiquity
of
Nonhuman
Species
Genes,
Design,
and
Designer
Beyond
Stones
and
Bones:
Alfred
R.
Wallace
and
the
Spirit
World
What
 is
 a
 Human
 Being?
 Matter,
 Mind,
 and
Consciousness
The
Cosmic
Hierarchy:
A
Cross-Cultural
Study
Apparitions,
Angels,
and
Aliens
Paranormal
modification
and
Production
of
biological
form
A
Universe
Designed
for
Life
Human
Devolution:
a
Vedic
Account

HUMAN
DEVOLUTION
A
VEDIC
ALTERNATIVE
TO
DARWIN’S
THEORY
MICHAEL
A.
CREMO

Dedicated
to

His
Divine
Grace

A.
C.
Bhaktivedanta
Swami
Prabhupada
om
ajnana-timirandhasya
jnananjana-shalakaya
caksur
unmilitam
yena
tasmai
shri-gurave
namah

INTRODUCTION

My
 book
 Forbidden
 archeology,
 coauthored
 with
 Richard
 L.
Thompson,
documents
archeological
evidence
for
extreme
human
antiquity,
consistent
with
the
Puranas,
the
historical
writings
of
ancient
India.
This
evidence
 places
 a
 human
 presence
 so
 far
 back
 in
 time
 as
 to
 call
 into
question
the
Darwinian
account
of
human
origins.

In
his
review
of
Forbidden
archeology
published
in
Geoarchaeology
(1994
v.
9,
pp.
337–340),
Kenneth
Feder
said,
“When
you
attempt
to
deconstruct
a
well-accepted
paradigm,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
a
new
paradigm
be
suggested
in
its
place.
The
authors
of
Forbidden
archeology
do
not
do
this,
and
 I
 would
 like
 to
 suggest
 a
 reason
 for
 their
 neglect
 here.
 Wishing
 to
appear
entirely
scientific,
the
authors
hoped
to
avoid
a
detailed
discussion
of
their
own
beliefs.”

It
 is
 not
 true
 that
 my
 coauthor
 and
 I
 were
 trying
 to
 avoid
 a
 detailed
discussion
of
our
own
alternative
account.
Rather
we
were
hoping
to
ignite
just
such
a
discussion.
But
some
practical
considerations
compelled
us
to
proceed
in
stages.
In
my
introduction
to
Forbidden
archeology,
I
wrote:
“Our
research
program
led
to
results
we
did
not
anticipate,
and
hence
a
book
much
larger
than
originally
envisioned.”
I
was
genuinely
surprised
at
the
massive
number
of
cases
of
archeological
evidence
for
extreme
human
antiquity
 that
 turned
 up
 during
 my
 eight
 years
 of
 historical
 research.
Forbidden
 archeology
 went
 to
 press
 with
 over
 nine
 hundred
 pages.
“Because
of
this,”
I
wrote
in
the
introduction,
“we
have
not
been
able
to
develop
in
this
volume
our
ideas
about
an
alternative
to
current
theories
of
human
 origins.
 We
 are
 therefore
 planning
 a
 second
 volume
 relating
 our
extensive
research
results
in
this
area
to
our
Vedic
source
material.”
Human
Devolution:
a
vedic
alternative
to
Darwin’s
theory
is
that
second
volume.
The
reasons
for
its
late
appearance
have
more
to
do
with
the
time
it
takes
to
research
and
write
such
a
book
rather
than
any
desire
to
avoid
a
detailed
discussion
of
a
Vedic
alternative
to
Darwinism.
Nevertheless,
 I
 am
 not
 unhappy
 that
 Human
 Devolution
 appeared
after
Forbidden
archeology
rather
than
along
with
it.
Before
presenting
an
alternative
to
the
Darwinian
concept
of
human
origins,
it
is
reasonable
to
show
that
one
is
really
necessary.
I
have
therefore
welcomed
the
chance
to
introduce
 to
 scientists
 and
 other
 scholars
 the
 evidence
 in
 Forbidden
archeology
before
moving
on
to
systematically
presenting
an
alternative.
After
hearing
the
Forbidden
archeology
presentations,
many
ask,
“If
we
did
not
 evolve
 from
 the
 apes,
 then
 what
 alternative
 explanation
 do
 you
propose?”
To
them,
I
reply,
“Do
you
admit
a
new
explanation
is
required?
If
not,
I
have
more
work
to
do
in
showing
that
one
is
required.
And
if
you
do
admit
 that
 a
 new
 explanation
 is
 really
 required,
 then
 it
 is
 not
 just
 my
responsibility
 to
 come
 up
 with
 a
 new
 explanation.
 It
 is
 also
 your
responsibility.
We
should
all
be
thinking
about
this.
Of
course,
I
have
some
ideas
about
what
the
explanation
should
be,
but
you
should
also.”

My
 first
 scientific
 presentation
 of
 Forbidden
 archeology’s
 evidence
 and
Vedic
perspective
was
in
December
of
1994
at
the
World
Archaeological
Congress
 in
 New
 Delhi,
 India.
 My
 paper
 “Puranic
 Time
 and
 the
Archeological
Record,”
delivered
in
the
section
on
time
and
archeology
chaired
 by
 Tim
 Murray
 and
 D.
 P.
 Agrawal,
 drew
 a
 large,
 appreciative
audience.
That
paper
was
later
chosen
for
publication
in
the
peer
reviewed
conference
proceedings
volume
time
and
archeology,
edited
by
Tim
Murray
and
published
by
Routledge
in
its
One
World
Archaeology
series
in
1999
(pp.
38–48).

In
 March
 1995,
 I
 presented
 my
 paper
 “The
 Impact
 of
 Forbidden
archeology”
at
the
Kentucky
State
University
Institute
for
Liberal
Studies
Sixth
Annual
Conference
on
Science
and
Culture.
This
paper
set
forth
the
Vedic
background
for
my
research.
It
also
reviewed
the
initial
scientific
reactions
to
the
publication
of
Forbidden
archeology.

In
July
1996,
I
was
invited
by
the
Institute
for
the
Study
of
Theoretical
Questions
of
the
Russian
Academy
of
Sciences
to
lecture
on
Forbidden
archeology
 in
 Moscow.
 I
 then
 spoke
 about
 my
 work
 at
 a
 symposium
organized
by
the
Institute
for
Oriental
Studies
of
the
Russian
Academy
of
Sciences.
 After
 my
 presentation,
 Indologist
 Evgeniya
 Y.
 Vanina
commented:
“I
think
that
the
statement
you
have
made,
and
your
paper,
are
very
important
because
they
touch
upon
.
.
.
how
to
look
at
the
texts
of
the
classical
tradition
as
sources
of
information.
There
is
a
tendency
among
scholars
to
say
whatever
the
vedas—and
the
Puranas,
the
Ramayana,
and
the
mahabharata—are
saying,
it
is
all
myth
and
concoction,
and
there
is
no
positive
information
in
it.
.
.
.
I
think
that
such
a
negativist
attitude
toward
the
ancient
and
early
medieval
Indian
texts
as
sources
of
information
should
definitely
be
discarded.”
While
I
was
in
Russia,
I
was
also
invited
to
give
a
talk
on
Forbidden
archeology
to
a
large
audience
of
physicists
at
Dubna,
the
 science
 city
 outside
 Moscow.
 In
 October
 1996,
 I
 spoke
 about
 the
evidence
 in
 Forbidden
 archeology
 at
 the
 International
 Conference
 on
Revisiting
Indus
Sarasvati
Age
and
Ancient
India
in
Atlanta.

In
July
1997,
in
Liège,
Belgium,
at
the
XXth
International
Congress
for
History
 of
 Science,
 I
 presented
 a
 detailed
 study
 of
 one
 of
 the
 cases
documented
in
Forbidden
archeology.
This
paper,
“The
Later
Discoveries
of
Boucher
de
Perthes
at
Moulin
Quignon
and
Their
Impact
on
the
Moulin
Quignon
 Jaw
 Controversy,”
 appeared
 in
 Proceedings
 of
 the
 XXth
International
 Congress
 of
 History
 of
 Science,
 vol.
 X.,
 earth
 Sciences,
Geography,
and
Cartography,
edited
by
Goulven
Laurent
and
published
by
Brepols
in
2002
(pp.
39–56).
In
October
of
1997,
I
presented
lectures
on
Forbidden
archeology
to
students
and
faculty
of
archeology,
anthropology,
and
 biology
 at
 the
 University
 of
 Amsterdam,
 the
 Free
 University
 of
Amsterdam,
 the
 University
 of
 Leiden,
 the
 University
 of
 Groningen,
 the
University
of
Utrecht,
and
the
University
of
Nijmegen
in
the
Netherlands,
and
 at
 the
 Catholic
 University
 of
 Louvain
 and
 University
 of
 Ghent
 in
Belgium.
 In
 November
 of
 1997,
 I
 lectured
 on
 Forbidden
 archeology
 at
universities
in
Hungary,
including
the
Eötvös
Loran
Science
University
in
Budapest,
the
University
of
Szeged,
and
the
University
of
Eger.

In
January
1999,
I
presented
a
paper
titled
“Forbidden
Archeology
of
the
Middle
and
Early
Pleistocene”
at
the
fourth
World
Archaeological
Congress
in
 Cape
 Town,
 South
 Africa.
 In
 March
 and
 April,
 I
 gave
 lectures
 on
Forbidden
archeology
at
universities
in
England,
Poland,
Hungary,
and
the
United
 States,
 including
 City
 University
 of
 London,
 the
 University
 of
Warsaw,
 the
 University
 of
 Delaware,
 the
 University
 of
 Maryland,
 and
Cornell
University.
In
September
1999,
I
was
invited
to
speak
on
Forbidden
archeology
 at
 the
 University
 of
 Oklahoma
 School
 of
 Geology
 and
Geophysics,
as
part
of
the
Shell
Oil
Colloquium
Series.
Also
in
September
I
presented
a
paper
titled
“Forbidden
Archeology
of
the
Paleolithic”
at
the
European
 Association
 of
 Archaeologists
 Fifth
 Annual
 Meeting
 at
Bournemouth
in
the
United
Kingdom.
The
paper
was
selected
for
inclusion
in
a
conference
proceedings
volume
edited
by
Ana
C.
Martins
for
British
Archaeological
Reports
(forthcoming).

In
March
2000,
I
was
invited
to
speak
on
Forbidden
archeology
in
a
lecture
series
of
the
Royal
Institution
of
Great
Britain,
one
of
the
world’s
oldest
scientific
 societies.
 The
 lecture
 was
 given
 in
 the
 Royal
 Institution’s
headquarters
in
London.
Later
that
year,
in
September,
I
presented
a
paper
titled
 “The
 Discoveries
 of
 Carlos
 Ribeiro:
 A
 Controversial
 Episode
 in
Nineteenth-Century
European
Archeology”
at
the
European
Association
of
Archaeologists
Sixth
Annual
Meeting,
in
Lisbon,
Portugal.
In
November
2000,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
universities
in
Hungary.

In
 June
 2001,
 I
 lectured
 on
 Forbidden
 archeology
 at
 the
 Simon
 Fraser
University
 in
 Vancouver,
 Canada.
 In
 September
 2001,
 my
 paper
 “The
Discoveries
of
Belgian
Geologist
Aimé
Louis
Rutot
at
Boncelles,
Belgium:
An
 Archeological
 Controversy
 from
 the
 Early
 Twentieth
 Century”
 was
accepted
 for
 presentation
 at
 the
 XXIVth
 Congress
 of
 the
 International
Union
of
Prehistoric
and
Protohistoric
Sciences,
held
in
September
of
that
year
 in
 Liège,
 Belgium.
 In
 October
 2001,
 I
 lectured
 on
 Forbidden
archeology
 at
 Pennsylvania
 State
 University
 and
 Cornell
 University.
 In
November
 2001,
 I
 lectured
 on
 Forbidden
 archeology
 at
 the
 Charles
University
in
Prague,
in
the
Czech
Republic,
at
the
invitation
of
the
faculty
of
philosophy.
In
 January
 and
 February
 2002,
 I
 toured
 South
 India,
 with
 lectures
 at
universities
 and
 other
 scientific
 and
 cultural
 institutions,
 such
 as
 the
Bharatiya
Vidya
Bhavan
in
Mumbai
(Bombay)
and
the
Ana
University
in
Chennai
 (Madras).
 In
 April
 and
 May
 2002,
 I
 toured
 the
 Ukraine
 and
Slovenia,
speaking
at
universities
and
scientific
institutions
such
as
the
Kiev
Mogilanskaya
Academy
and
the
Institute
of
Archeology
of
the
Ukrainian
Academy
 of
 Sciences.
 I
 also
 spoke
 to
 archeologists
 in
 the
 archeology
department
of
the
Dnepropetrovsk
Historical
Museum.
In
November
and
December
 I
 returned
 to
 the
 Ukraine
 for
 another
 series
 of
 such
 talks
 at
universities
and
historical
museums
in
Odessa,
Kharkov,
and
Lvov.
As
I
am
writing
this
introduction
in
December
2002,
I
am
preparing
a
paper
on
the
California
gold
mine
discoveries
reported
by
geologist
Josiah
D.
Whitney
for
 the
 fifth
 World
 Archaeological
 Congress,
 to
 be
 held
 in
 Washington,
D.C.,
in
June
2003.
I
am
with
archeologist
Ana
Martins
of
Portugal
co-
organizer
of
a
section
on
history
of
archeology
for
the
Congress.

In
 terms
 of
 ordinary
 scholarship,
 this
 modest
 collection
 of
 conference
presentations,
publications,
and
university
lectures
is
not
overly
impressive.
But
given
the
explicit
Vedic
anti-evolutionary
content
of
the
papers
and
lectures
they
are,
I
believe,
historically
significant.
They
show
that
scientists
and
historians
of
science,
whether
or
not
they
agree
with
the
conclusions
expressed
in
the
presentations,
now
consider
such
presentations
part
of
the
active
discourse
in
their
disciplines.
In
that
sense,
they
demonstrate
that
Forbidden
archeology
accomplished
one
of
its
major
purposes—sparking
a
discussion
 within
 the
 world
 of
 science
 about
 anomalous
 evidence
 for
extreme
human
antiquity
and
a
Vedic
perspective
on
human
origins.
The
presentations
 show
 that
 fundamentalist
 Darwinists
 within
 the
 world
 of
science
have
not
been
as
successful
as
they
would
like
to
be
in
maintaining
a
 boundary
 between
 science
 and
 what
 they
 call
 religiously
 motivated
“pseudoscience,”
to
use
their
favored,
and
charmingly
cranky,
terminology.
I
personally
do
not
accept
the
increasingly
irrelevant
distinctions
some
try
to
make
between
scientific
and
religious
ways
of
knowing.
I
see
myself
as
neither
 scientist
 nor
 religionist,
 but
 as
 a
 human
 being
 prepared
 to
 use
various
ways
of
knowing
in
the
pursuit
of
truth.
Forbidden
archeology
was
widely
reviewed
in
the
professional
journals
of
archeology,
anthropology,
and
history
of
science.
I
included
the
complete
texts
of
these
reviews,
along
with
related
correspondence,
in
my
book
Forbidden
archeology’s
Impact,
which
attracted
its
own
set
of
academic
reviews.
For
example,
Simon
Locke
wrote
in
Public
understanding
of
Science
(1999
v.
8,
no.
1,
pp.
68–69),
“Social
constructivism,
reflexivity,
and
all
that
is
postmodern
have
inspired
a
variety
of
experiments
in
new
literary
forms
to
enliven
the
staid
old
world
of
the
standard
academic
study.
.
.
.
As
attempts
to
document
the
social
process
of
knowledge
production
and
capture
some
of
its
reflexivity,
they
are
both
consistent
and
courageous.
So,
too,
Michael
Cremo’s
book.
The
‘impact’
the
book
documents
is
that
of
Cremo’s
earlier
work,
Forbidden
archeology.
 In
 this
 latest
 book
 rather
 than
 construct
 his
 own
 historical
narrative,
 Cremo
 opts
 for
 the
 far
 more
 interesting
 strategy
 of
 directly
reproducing
much
of
the
source
material
from
which
any
such
narrative
would
be
constructed.
The
result
is
a
multi-faceted
textual
kaleidoscope,
in
which
 a
 wide
 range
 of
 the
 many
 discourses
 surrounding
 contemporary
science
reflect
and
refract
each
other
in
fascinating
array
.
.
.
Cremo
has
provided
here
a
resource
of
considerable
richness
and
value
to
analysts
of
public
understanding
[of
science].
.
.
.
It
should
also
make
a
useful
teaching
resource
as
one
of
the
best-documented
case
studies
of
‘science
wars,’
and
raising
a
wide
range
of
issues
covering
aspects
of
‘knowledge
transfer’
in
a
manner
sure
to
be
provocative
in
the
classroom.”

The
positive
or
negative
nature
of
the
Forbidden
archeology
reviews
in
academic
journals
is
not
as
significant
as
the
very
fact
that
the
reviews
appeared
at
all.
They
represent
another
form
of
acknowledgement
that
the
Vedic
critique
of
the
Darwinian
theory
of
human
evolution
represented
by
Forbidden
 archeology
 is
 a
 genuine
 part
 of
 contemporary
 science
 and
scholarship.
 As
 Kenneth
 Feder
 said
 in
 his
 Geoarchaeology
 review
 (pp.
337–338),
“The
book
itself
represents
something
perhaps
not
seen
before;
we
can
fairly
call
it
‘Krishna
creationism’
with
no
disrespect
intended
.
.
.
While
 decidedly
 antievolutionary
 in
 perspective,
 this
 work
 is
 not
 the
ordinary
variety
of
antievolutionism
in
form,
content,
or
style.
In
distinction
to
the
usual
brand
of
such
writing,
the
authors
use
original
sources
and
the
book
is
well
written.
Further,
the
overall
tone
of
the
work
is
superior
to
that
exhibited
in
ordinary
creationist
literature.”

Jo
 Wodak
 and
 David
 Oldroyd
 published
 a
 lengthy
 review
 article
 about
Forbidden
archeology
in
Social
Studies
of
Science
(1996
v.
26,
pp.

192–213).
In
their
article,
titled
“Vedic
Creationism:
A
Further
Twist
to
the
Evolution
 Debate,”
 they
 asked
 (p.
 207),“So
 has
 Forbidden
 archeology
made
any
contribution
at
all
to
the
literature
on
palaeoanthropology?”
They
concluded,
“Our
answer
is
a
guarded
‘yes’,
for
two
reasons.”
First,
“the
historical
material
.
.
.
has
not
been
scrutinized
in
such
detail
before,”
and,
second,
the
book
does
“raise
a
central
problematic
regarding
the
lack
of
certainty
 in
 scientific
 ‘truth’
 claims.”They
 also
 commented
 (p.
 198),
 “It
must
be
acknowledged
that
Forbidden
archeology
brings
to
attention
many
interesting
 issues
 that
 have
 not
 received
 much
 consideration
 from
historians;
and
the
authors’
detailed
examination
of
the
early
literature
is
certainly
 stimulating
 and
 raises
 questions
 of
 considerable
 interest,
 both
historically
and
from
the
perspective
of
practitioners
of
SSK
[sociology
of
scientific
knowledge].
Indeed,
they
appear
to
have
gone
into
some
historical
matters
more
deeply
than
any
other
writers
of
whom
we
have
knowledge.”

In
the
first
few
pages
of
their
article
(pp.
192–195),
Wodak
and
Oldroyd
gave
extensive
background
information
on:
The
International
Society
for
Krishna
Consciousness,
of
which
the
authors
of
Forbidden
archeology
are
members
(“a
modern
variant
of
the
Bhakti
sects
that
have
dominated
Hindu
religious
life
over
the
last
one
and
a
half
millennia”);
the
teachings
of
the
movement’s
founder,
Bhaktivedanta
Swami
Prabhupada
(“for
Prabhupada,
science
gives
no
adequate
account
of
the
origin
of
the
universe
or
of
life”);
the
 Bhaktivedanta
 Institute
 (they
 comment
 on
 “the
 boldness
 of
 its
intellectual
 programme”);
 and
 Vedic
 chronology
 (“partial
 dissolutions,
called
pralaya,
supposedly
 take
 place
 every
 4.32
 billion
 years,
 bringing
catastrophes
in
which
whole
groups
of
living
forms
can
disappear”).
Wodak
and
 Oldroyd
 also
 make
 many
 references
 to
 the
 Rg
 veda,
 vedanta,
 the
Puranas,
the
atma,
yoga,
and
karma.

In
common
with
other
reviewers,
Wodak
and
Oldroyd
drew
a
connection
between
Forbidden
archeology
and
the
work
of
Christian
creationists.
“As
is
well
known,”
they
noted
(p.
192),
“Creationists
try
to
show
that
humans
are
of
recent
origin,
and
that
empirical
investigations
accord
with
human
history
as
recorded
in
the
Old
Testament.
Forbidden
archeology
(Fa)
offers
a
brand
of
Creationism
based
on
something
quite
different,
namely
ancient
Vedic
beliefs.
From
this
starting
point,
instead
of
claiming
a
human
history
of
mere
millennia,
Fa
argues
for
the
existence
of
Homo
sapiens
way
back
into
the
Tertiary,
perhaps
even
earlier.”

In
 l’anthropologie
 (1995
 v.99,
 no.
 1,
 p.
 159),
 Marylène
 Pathou-Mathis
wrote:
“M.
Cremo
and
R.
Thompson
have
willfully
written
a
provocative
work
that
raises
the
problem
of
the
influence
of
the
dominant
ideas
of
a
time
period
on
scientific
research.
These
ideas
can
compel
the
researchers
to
orient
their
analyses
according
to
the
conceptions
that
are
permitted
by
the
scientific
community.”
She
concluded,
“The
documentary
richness
of
this
work,
more
historical
and
sociological
than
scientific,
is
not
to
be
ignored.”
And
in
British
Journal
for
the
History
of
Science
(1995
v.
28,
pp.
377

–379),
Tim
Murray
noted
in
his
review
of
Forbidden
archeology
(p.
379):
“I
have
no
doubt
that
there
will
be
some
who
will
read
this
book
and
profit
from
it.
Certainly
it
provides
the
historian
of
archaeology
with
a
useful
compendium
 of
 case
 studies
 in
 the
 history
 and
 sociology
 of
 scientific
knowledge,
which
can
be
used
to
foster
debate
within
archaeology
about
how
 to
 describe
 the
 epistemology
 of
 one’s
 discipline.”
 He
 further
characterized
 Forbidden
 archeology
 as
 a
 book
 that
 “joins
 others
 from
creation
science
and
New
Age
philosophy
as
a
body
of
works
which
seek
to
address
members
of
a
public
alienated
from
science,
either
because
it
has
become
 so
 arcane
 or
 because
 it
 has
 ceased
 to
 suit
 some
 in
 search
 of
meaning
for
their
lives.”
Murray
acknowledged
that
the
Vedic
perspective
of
 Forbidden
 archeology
 might
 have
 a
 role
 to
 play
 in
 the
 future
development
of
archeology.
He
wrote
in
his
review
(p.
379)
that
archeology
is
now
in
a
state
of
flux,
with
practitioners
debating
“issues
which
go
to
the
conceptual
 core
 of
 the
 discipline.”
 Murray
 then
 proposed,“Whether
 the
vedas
 have
 a
 role
 to
 play
 in
 this
 is
 up
 to
 the
 individual
 scientists
concerned.”

This
 openmindedness
 is
 characteristic
 of
 the
 reviews
 of
 Forbidden
archeology
that
appeared
in
respected
academic
and
scientific
journals,
the
only
exception
being
a
particularly
vitriolic
attack
by
Jonathan
Marks
in
american
Journal
of
Physical
anthropology
(1994
v.
93,
no.
1,
pp.

140–141).
Other
than
that,
demands
to
totally
exclude
the
Vedic
perspective
of
Forbidden
archeology
from
the
discourse
of
science
were
confined
to
the
publications
 of
 extremist
 groups,
 such
 as
 skeptics
 societies
 (whose
skepticism
does
not
extend
to
the
theory
of
evolution)
and
the
unremittingly
anticreationist
National
Center
for
Science
Education
in
the
United
States
(misleadingly
named
so
as
to
imply
some
governmental
connection).
Also
in
this
category
is
an
attempted
book-length
debunking
by
Michael
Brass
(the
antiquity
of
man).

Wiktor
Stoczkowski,
reviewing
Forbidden
archeology
in
l’Homme
(1995
v.
35,
pp.
173–174),
accurately
noted
(p.
173),
“Historians
of
science
repeat
tirelessly
that
the
Biblical
version
of
origins
was
replaced
in
the
nineteenth
century
 by
 the
 evolution
 theory.
 In
 our
 imaginations,
 we
 substitute
 this
simple
story
for
the
more
complex
reality
that
we
are
today
confronted
with