IN THE BEGINNING

Pseudo-science vs. The Real Deal!

Pseudoarcheology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, cult archaeology, and spooky archaeology—refers to interpretations of the past from outside the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudo scientific  interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of unproven, and fabrication of evidence. According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing in the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, "Pseudo archaeology actively promotes myths which are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples."  (His opinion and not the authors)

There is no unified Pseudo archaeology theory or approach, but rather many different interpretations of the past which are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community. These include religious approaches such as Creationism when identified as "creation science" which applies to the archaeology of historic periods such as those which would have included the Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, and the supposed worldwide flood myth. Some Pseudoarcheology  theories revolve around the idea which prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Italian author Peter Kolosimo, French authors Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in The Morning of the Magicians (1963), and Swiss author Erich von D?niken in Chariots of the Gods? (1968). Others instead hold which there were human societies in the ancient period which were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his Fingerprints of the Gods (1995). Pseudoarcheology, has also been manifest in Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.

Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups such as the Jews, the Catholic monks and alternative bible groups creating their own insight into creationism. Fringe archaeological ideas such as arch-cryptography or as archaeocryptography and pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from the British Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those which have been adopted by members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems.

Academic archaeologists have heavily criticized pseudoarcheology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterizing it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments". The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.

Etymology

Various terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term "cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole (1980) and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987). "Fantastic archeology" was used in the 1980s as the name of an undergraduate course at Harvard University taught by Stephen Williams, who published a book with the same title. In the 2000s, the term "alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001), Robert J. Wallis (2003), Cornelius Holtorf (2006), and Gabriel Moshenka (2008).

 Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" which "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations". They argued the term "pseudoarcheology" was far more appropriate, a term also used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such as Colin Renfrew (2006).

Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. Glyn Daniel, the editor of Antiquity, used the derogative "bullshit archaeology", and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted there were certain terms used for Pseudoarcheology which were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society".

Characteristics

William H. Stiebing Jr. argued despite their many differences, there were a set of core characteristics which almost all Pseudoarcheology interpretations shared. He believed, because of this, Pseudoarcheology could be categorized as a "single phenomenon". He went on to identify three core commonalities of pseudo archaeological theories: the unscientific nature of its method and evidence, its history of providing "simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues", and its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of the Enlightenment. This idea that there are core characteristics of pseudo archaeologies is shared by other academics.

Lack of scientific method

Academic critics have pointed out which pseudo archeologists typically neglect to use the scientific method. Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudo archeologists "press-gang" the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" which is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma. Different Pseudoarcheology  groups hold a variety of basic assumptions which are typically unscientific: the Nazi pseudo archeologists for instance took the cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption.

 Christian fundamentalist pseudo archeologists conceive of the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old while Hindu fundamentalist pseudo archaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists. Despite this, many of pseudoarcheology's proponents claim they reached their conclusions using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstrable at issue.

Academic archaeologist John R. Cole believed most pseudo archaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works, and they instead believe it to be a "simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle" between contesting theories. It was because of this failure to understand the scientific method, he argued, which the entire Pseudo archaeology approach to their arguments was faulty. He went on to argue which most pseudo archeologists do not consider alternative explanations to which they want to propagate, and which their "theories" were typically just "notions", not having sufficient supporting evidence to allow them to be considered "theories" in the scientific, academic meaning of the word. (It should be noted here that this is the opinion of John R. Cole and no opportunity was given to the pseudo archeologist to respond due to the fact that this organization has no central office.

Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudo archaeologists typically use other forms of evidence to support their arguments. For instance, they often make use of "generalized cultural comparisons", taking various artifacts and monuments from one society, and highlighting similarities with those of another to support a conclusion which both had a common source—typically an ancient lost civilization like Atlantis, Mu, or an extraterrestrial influence. This takes the different artifacts or monuments entirely out of their original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of the utmost importance.

Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudo archaeologists is the interpretation of various myths as reflecting historical events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural contexts. For instance, pseudo archaeologist Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilization represented a cosmic catastrophe which occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE. This was criticized by academic archaeologist William H. Stiebing Jr., who noted that such myths only developed in the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, over a millennium after Velikovsky claimed the events had occurred, and the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.

Opposition to the archaeological establishment

[Academics] have formed a massive and global network through universities, museums, institutes, societies, and foundations. And this immense powerhouse and clearing house of knowledge has presented their dogma of history to the general public totally unhindered and unchallenged from the outside. ... On a more sinister note: now this "church of science" has formed a network of watchdog organizations such as CSICOP and The Skeptical Society [sic] (to name but a few) in order to act as the gatekeepers of the truth (as they see it), ready to come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on all those whom they perceive as "frauds", "charlatans", and "pseudo-scientists" – in short, heretics.

Pseudo archeologist Robert Bauval on his views of academia (2000)[29]

Pseudo archeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing the much larger archaeological establishment. They often use language which disparages academics and dismisses them as being unadventurous, spending all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to challenge the orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In some more extreme examples, pseudo archeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public. When academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists and criticize their theories, many pseudoarchaeologists see it as further evidence which their own ideas are right, and which they are simply being suppressed by members of this academic conspiracy.

The prominent English archaeologist Colin Renfrew admitted which the archaeological establishment was often "set in its ways and resistant to radical new ideas" but which this was not the reason why Pseudoarcheology  theories were outright rejected by academics. Garrett G. Fagan expanded on this, noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinized to secure their validity ... and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn." Fagan noted which Pseudo archaeology theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.

Conversely, many pseudo archeologists, whilst criticizing the academic archaeological establishment, also attempt to get support from people with academic credentials and affiliations. At times, they quote historical, and in most cases dead academics to back up their arguments; for instance prominent pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, in his seminal Fingerprints of the Gods (1995), repeatedly notes which the eminent physicist Albert Einstein once commented positively on the pole shift hypothesis, a theory which has been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock supports. As Fagan noted however, the fact which Einstein was a physicist and not a geologist is not even mentioned by Hancock, nor is the fact which the understanding of plate tectonics (which came to disprove earth crustal displacement) only came to light following Einstein's death.

Nationalist motivations

Pseudo archaeology can be motivated by nationalism (cf. Nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption to establish the Germanic people as the descendants of the original Aryan 'master race') or a desire to prove a particular religious (cf. intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail. 

Archaeologists distinguish their research from Pseudo archaeology by pointing to differences in research methodology, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic approach to collecting data. Though there is overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions about the past, objective analysis of folk archaeology—in anthropological terms of their cultural contexts and the cultural needs they respond to—have been comparatively few. However, in this vein, Robert Silverberg located the Mormon's use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus and the voyage of Madoc and "Welsh Indians" was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by Gwyn Williams.

Religious motivations

Religiously motivated Pseudo archaeology  theories include the young earth theory of some Judeo-Christian fundamentalists. They argue which the Earth is 4,000-10,000 years old, with figures varying, depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudo archaeologists believe the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years it is generally believed to have existed. Archaeologist John R. Cole refers to such beliefs as "cult archaeology" and believes them to be Pseudoarcheology. He went on to say which this "pseudoarcheology" had "many of the attributes, causes, and effects of religion".

A more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology is the claim of Ron Wyatt to have discovered Noah's ark, the graves of Noah and his wife, the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, and numerous other important sites. However, he has not presented evidence sufficient to impress Bible scholars, scientists, and historians. Answers in Genesis propagates many pseudoscientific notions as part of its creationist ministry.

Description

Pseudo archaeology can be practiced intentionally or unintentionally. Archaeological frauds and hoaxes are considered intentional pseudo archaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally converted to Pseudo archaeology through unscientific interpretation. (cf. confirmation bias)

Especially in the past, but also in the present, Pseudo archaeology has been motivated by racism, especially when the basic intent was to discount or deny the abilities of non-white peoples to make significant accomplishments in astronomy, architecture, sophisticated technology, ancient writing, seafaring, and other accomplishments generally identified as evidence of "civilization". Racism can be implied by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to Lost Tribes, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or even extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to the intelligence and ingenuity of indigenous peoples.

Practitioners of Pseudo archaeology often rail against academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming which conventional science has overlooked critical evidence. Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which "the Establishment" colludes in suppressing evidence.

Countering the misleading "discoveries" of Pseudo archaeology binds academic archaeologists in a quandary, described by Cornelius Holtorf as whether to strive to disprove alternative approaches in a "crusading" approach or to concentrate on better public understanding of the sciences involved; Holtorf suggested a third, relativist and contextualized approach, in identifying the social and cultural needs which both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and in identifying the engagement with the material remains of the past in the present in terms of critical understanding and dialogue with "multiple pasts", such as Barbara Bender explored for Stonehenge. In presenting the quest for truths as process rather than results, Holtorf quoted Gotthold Lessing (Eine Duplik, 1778):

If God were to hold in his right hand all the truth and in his left the unique ever-active spur for truth, although with the corollary to err forever, asking me to choose, I would humbly take his left and say "Father, give; for the pure truth is for you alone!"

"Archaeological readings of the landscape enrich the experience of inhabiting or visiting a place," Holtorf asserted. "Those readings may well be based on science, but even non-scientific research contributes to enriching our landscapes." The question for opponents of folk archaeology is whether such enrichment is delusional.

Participatory "public" or "community" archaeology offers guided engagement.

In history

In the mid-2nd century, those exposed by Lucian's sarcastic essay "Alexander the false prophet" prepared an archaeological "find" in Chalcedon to prepare a public for the supposed oracle they planned to establish at Antiochus in Paphlagonia (Pearse, 2001[46]):

[I]n the temple of Apollo, which is the most ancient in Chalcedon, they buried bronze tablets which said which very soon Asclepius, with his father Apollo, would move to Pontus and take up his residence at Antiochus. The opportune discovery of these tablets caused this story to spread quickly to all Bithynia and Pontus, and to Antiochus sooner than anywhere else.

At Glastonbury Abbey in 1291, at a time when King Edward I desired to emphasize his "Englishness", a fortunate discovery was made: the coffin of King Arthur, unmistakably identified with an inscribed plaque. Arthur was reinterred at Glastonbury in a magnificent ceremonial attended by the king and queen.

Examples

Nationalistic pseudo archaeology

·        The assertion which the Mound Builders were a long vanished non-Native American people thought to have come from Europe, the Middle East, or Africa.

·        The Kensington Runestone of Minnesota held to prove Nordic Viking primacy in discovery of the Americas.

·        Nazi archaeology, the Thule Society, and expeditions sent by the Ahnenerbe to research the existence of a mythical Aryan race. The research of Edmund Kiss at Tiankai would be one example.

·        The Black Egyptian hypothesis – A hypothesis rooted within Afrocentric thought, alleging which Ancient Egypt was a predominantly Black civilization.

·        The Bosnian pyramids project, which has projected several hills in Visoko, Bosnia are ancient pyramids.

·        The theory by British Israelites that the Hill of Tara in Ireland contained the Ark of the Covenant. They excavated the hill in an attempt to prove the Irish were part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

·        Piltdown man.

·        Neolithic hyper diffusion from Egypt being responsible for influencing most of the major ancient civilizations of the world in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and particularly the ancient Native Americans. This includes Olmec alternative origin speculations.

·        Jovan I. Dereck’s Serb centric claims in the ancient history of the Old World.

·        Romanian photochromism also uses Pseudoarcheology  interpretations; for more pieces of information, see the Tartarian tablets, the Rohonc Codex's Deco-Romanian hypothesis, or the Sinai lead plates.

·        Slav Macedonian nationalists view which ancient Macedonians were people unrelated to Greeks and which contemporary Slav Macedonians are their cultural, historical and linguistic descendants.

·        The theory which New Zealand was not settled by the Māori people, but by a pre-Polynesian race of giants. 

Religiously motivated pseudo archaeology

·        Repeated claims of the discovery of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat or neighboring mountain ranges.

·        Use of questionable artefacts such as the Grave Creek Stone, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone and the Michigan relics represent proof of the presence of a pre-Columbian Semitic culture in America.

·        New Age assertions about Atlantis, Lemuria, and ancient root races derived from the writings of authors such as 19th-century theosophist and occultist Helena Blavatsky.

·        Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.

·        Denial of scientific dating techniques in favor of a young Earth age.     

General pseudo archaeology

·        Archaeological interest of Pedrad da Gávea

·        The work of 19th- and early 20th-century authors such as Ignatius Donnelly, Augustus Le Plongeon, James Churchward, and Arthur Posnansky.

·        The work of contemporary authors such as Giorgio Tsoukalos, Erich von D?niken, Barry Fell, Zecharia Sitchin, Robert Bauval, Frank Joseph, Graham Hancock, Colin Wilson, Michael Cremo, Immanuel Velikovsky, and David Hatcher Childress.

·        Lost continents such as Atlantis, Mu, Kumari Kandam, or Lemuria, which are all contested by mainstream archaeologists and historians as lacking critical physical evidence and general historical credibility.

·        The ancient astronaut theory regarding Mayan ruler Pacal II.

·        Speculation regarding pre-Columbian contact between Egypt and the Maya.

·        Speculation by paranormal researchers which an abnormal human skull promoted as the "star child" was the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or extraterrestrial genetic engineering, despite DNA evidence proving which the skull was which of an anatomically modern human infant, most likely suffering from hydrocephalus.

·        Notable Pseudo archaeology books

·        Morning of the Magicians

·        Chariots of the Gods

·        Fingerprints of the Gods

·        From Atlantis to the Sphinx 

Notable Pseudo archaeology television programs and series

·        In Search of... (1977–1982)

·        The Mysterious Origins of Man (1996)

·        Ancient Aliens (2010 - )

·        America Unearthed (2012-2015, 2019 - )

·        The Curse of Oak Island (2014 - )

·        Legends of the Lost with Megan Fox (2018)      

Legitimate archaeological sites and objects often subject to Pseudo archaeology speculation

·        Puma Punku at Tiankai

·        Stonehenge

·        The Great Pyramid of Giza

·        The Sphinx

·        Etruscan inscriptions

·        Easter Island

·        Teotihuacan

·        Palenque

·        Chichen Itza

·        Machu Picchu

·        G?bekli Tepe

·        Zorats Karer a.k.a. Armenian Stonehenge

·        The Nazca Lines

·        The stone spheres of Costa Rica

·        The Chinese pyramids

·        The Megalithic Temples of Malta

·        Nan Madol

·        The Yonaguni Monument

·        Dogū

·        ?atalh?yük

·        Nimrud lens

·        Ingá Stone

·        Kalasasaya

·        Antikythera mechanism

·        Terracotta Army

·        Piri Reis map

Academic archaeological responses

Pseudo archaeology theories have come to be heavily criticized by academic and professional archaeologists. One of the first books to address these directly was by archaeologist Robert Wauchope of Tulane University. Prominent academic archaeologist Colin Renfrew stated his opinion that it was appalling that pseudo archaeologists treated archaeological evidence in such a "frivolous and self-serving way", something he believed trivialized the "serious matter" of the study of human origins. Academics like John R. Cole, Garrett G. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder have argued which Pseudo archaeology  interpretations of the past were based upon sensationalism, self-contradiction, fallacious logic, manufactured or misinterpreted evidence, quotes taken out of context and incorrect information. Fagan and Feder characterized such interpretations of the past as being "anti-reason and anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful". In turn, many pseudo archaeologists have dismissed academics as being closed-minded and not willing to consider theories other than their own.

Many academic archaeologists have argued which the spread of alternative archaeological theories is a threat to the general public's understanding of the past. Fagan was particularly scathing of television shows which presented Pseudo archaeology theories to the general public, believing which they did so because of the difficulties in making academic archaeological ideas comprehensible and interesting to the average viewer. Renfrew however believed those television executives commissioning these documentaries knew they were erroneous, and they allowed them to be made and broadcast simply in the hope of "short-term financial gain".

Fagan and Feder believed it was not possible for academic archaeologists to successfully engage with pseudo archaeologists, remarking "you cannot reason with unreason". Speaking from their own experiences, they thought attempting dialogues just became "slanging matches” in which the expertise and motives of the critic become the main focus of attention." Fagan has maintained this idea elsewhere, remarking that arguing with supporters of Pseudo archaeology theories was "pointless" because they denied logic. He noted they included those "who openly admitted to not having read a word written by a trained Egyptologist" but who at the same time "were pronouncing how academic Egyptology was all wrong, even sinister."

Conferences and anthologies

At the 1986 meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, its organizers, Kenneth Feder, Luanne Hudson and Francis Harrold decided to hold a symposium to examine Pseudo archaeology  beliefs from a variety of academic standpoints, including archaeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history and psychology. From this symposium, an anthology was produced, entitled Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudo Archeology Beliefs about the Past (1987).

At the 2002 annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, a workshop was held on the topic of pseudo archaeology. It subsequently led to the publication of an academic anthology, Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudo archaeology Misinterprets the Past and Misleads the Public (2006), which was edited by Garrett G. Fagan.

On 23 and 24 April 2009, The American Schools of Oriental Research and the Duke University Center for Jewish Studies, along with the Duke Department of Religion, the Duke Graduate Program in Religion, the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences Committee on Faculty Research, and the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, sponsored a conference entitled "Archaeology, Politics, and the Media," which addressed the abuse of archaeology in the Holy Land for political, religious, and ideological purposes. Emphasis was placed on the media's reporting of sensational and politically motivated archaeological claims and the academy's responsibility in responding to it.

Inclusive attitudes

Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however that critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and which purporting their views in such a manner was damaging to the public's perception of archaeologists. Holtorf highlighted that there were similarities between academic and alternative archaeological interpretations, with the former taking some influence from the latter. As evidence, he highlighted archeoastronomy, which was once seen as a core component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream academics. He also noted which certain archaeological scholars, like William Stukeley (1687–1765), Margaret Murray (1863–1963) and Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994) were seen as significant figures to both academic and alternative archaeologists. He concluded that a constructive dialogue should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists. Fagan and Feder have responded to Holtorf's views in detail, asserting that such a dialogue is no more possible than is one between evolutionary biologists and creationists or between astronomers and astrologers: one approach is scientific, the other is anti-scientific.

In the early 1980s, Kenneth Feder conducted a survey of his archaeology students. On the 50-question survey, 10 questions had to do with archaeology and/or pseudoscience. Some of the claims were more rational; the world is 5 billion years old, and human beings came about through evolution. However, questions also included issues such as, Tutt’s tomb actually killed people upon discovery, and there is solid evidence for the existence of Atlantis. As it turned out, some of the students Feder was teaching put some stake in the pseudoscience claims. 12% actually believed people on Howard Carter’s expedition were killed by an ancient Egyptian curse.

A Note from Welby: Throughout history, there have been those with radical ideas who have been ostracized by conventional wisdom...too numerous to mention these men and women of wisdom suffered throughout their lives for beliefs which ran contrary to the "insider" interest. What did they have to lose by giving some room to these interlopers...except, perhaps a better mouse trap! I am certainly not of the scientific community but I am Homo species...and I am interested not only in where we came from but in where we are going and who will we meet when we get there. I believe in keeping an open mind...and I discourage the word pseudo?

REFERENCES

1 M J Russell, R M Daniel and A J Hall, Terra Nova, 1993, 5, 343 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.1993.tb00267.x)

2 W Martin and M J Russell, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci., 2003, 358, 59 (DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1183)

3 L M Barge et al, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 2015, 54, 8184 (DOI: 10.1002/anie.201501663)

4 B Herschy et al, J. Mol. Evol., 2014, 79, 213 (DOI: 10.1007/s00239-014-9658-4)

5 F Klein et al, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 2015, 112, 12036 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504674112)

6 L Da Silva, M C Maurel and D Deamer, J. Mol. Evol., 2015, 80, 86 (DOI: 10.1007/s00239-014-9661-9)

7 M W Powner, B Gerland and J D Sutherland, Nature, 2009, 459, 239 (DOI: 10.1038/nature08013)

8 B H Patel et al, Nat. Chem., 2015, 7, 301 (DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2202)

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemistry World. The article was first published on April 16, 2017.

Whitney Clavin

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Citing:

The Jerusalem Bible (July 4, 1966)

National Academy of Science (Science and Creationism)

Rachel Brazil, Chemistry World

Washington Post

Wall Street Journal

The Atlantic

Christian Science Monitor

 Paul Bignell

Youval Noah Harari (Sapiens)

Joel Achenbach

Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. (Genesis…Farewell to Reason)

wikipedia

wtcfoundation.xyz