�ϻ�����Ӯ����

“This story illustrates powerfully how Darwin's theory, together with how it is often promoted to the public, can bias investigators and lead them along blind alleys. The "science" that supposedly has "proved" evolution is not capable of doing any such thing because it deals with past events. This means that it is more equivalent to forensic science, where clues are gathered which have to be very carefully weighed by experts in a court of law. The jury must then decide what the truth of the matter is from the balance of probabilities. Looking back, it is apparent that there was never powerful evidence for a stooping brutish, ape-like Neanderthal man, but that some evidence was withheld from the "jury" of public opinion.”