How can Graham Hancock be more credible that Keith Fitzpatrick-Mathews?
How can God be more credible than Charles Darwin?
Hancock is an author. He writes books that cause a "sensation" because that's what makes people buy them, making him wealthy.
So too was Charles Darwin an author. A theologian by training but an author nevertheless. I guess we should all look deeper into the economic motives of the evolution industry.
"Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in
Animal House pie-throwing and name calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot" ... In short, it's a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry's been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival. Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year's celebration of Charles Darwin's
On the Origin of Species -- the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest, a brand foisted on us 150 years ago. Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations." -- Suzan Mazur, author, The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, Feb 2010
Fitzpatrick-Matthews is an archaeologist.
An admitedly bad one. His website is appropriately named.
By his own admission Hancock is not.
So? If a janitor at McDonalds said Antarctica is Atlantis it would still be true.
So if he's not, why does he write about a subject he's not trained in? To make money of course.
Are you an archaeologist? I'm beginning to question your economic motives.