|
Michael A. Cremo er forsker og autoritet innenfor arkeologi. Han har vært hovedforfatter i den kontroversielle boken ”Forbidden Acrheology”, som omhandler anomalier innenfor arkeologi og antropologi. Boken er både elsket og hatet. Han er en av få kritikere av evolusjonsteorien som har fått fagfellevurdering (peer review) av sine publikasjoner og rapporter. Michael Cremo har også mottatt flere priser for sine foredrag rundt om forskjellige universiteter og akademiske institusjoner i verden. Intervjuet er gjennomført elektronisk.
-Who are you and where do you live ?
My name is Michael A. Cremo. I live in Los Angeles, but six or seven months
out of each year, I am traveling, to give lectures or to do research. I am a
researcher in human origins and antiquity. I do not have any advanced earned
university degrees, but I regularly speak at universities around the world.
I regularly present papers at major international conferences about
archeology and anthropology. Some of my papers appear in peer-reviewed
academic publications. A few years ago, a small university in Hungary gave
me an honorary doctorate in science and theology, in recognition of my
life's work.
-What are your passions and interests?
I am most interested in human origins and antiquity. I think the current
ideas about human origins and antiquity that are presented to students in
textbooks of biology, archeology, and anthropology are wrong.
-Your masterpiece “Forbidden Archeology” share space among one of the
greatest scientific books when it comes to archeology, at least controversial archeology compared to mainstream ideas. For those who don’t have read the book, can you briefly tell what the book deals with?
According to most scientists, humans like us first came into existence about
150,000 years ago. Before that, we are told, there were no humans like us.
There were only some more primitive apelike human ancestors. Many scientists
say that all the archeological evidence supports this evolutionary picture
of human origins. But when I did eight years of research into the whole
history of archeology, I found something different. Over the past 150 years,
archeologists, and other scientists, have discovered numerous bones,
footprints, and artifacts showing that humans like us have existed for tens
of millions, even hundreds of millions of years, going back to the very
beginnings of life on earth. These discoveries are not very well known
because of a process of knowledge filtration that goes on in the world of
science. Discoveries that support the current evolutionary theory pass
through this intellectual filter. Students will read about these discoveries
in their textbooks. But discoveries that radically contradict the current
evolutionary theory are filtered out, so students will not find out about
these archeological discoveries in their textbooks. That is why I called my
book Forbidden Archeology.
-How was this book met by the academic institutes and universities around the world? Did you face much dogmatic criticisms for promoting well documented theories that was completely against the mainstream archeological view?
There were many different reactions, because the academic world, the
scientific world, is not monolithic. There is one group of scientists and
academics that I call fundamentalist evolutionists. They accept the theory
of evolution not just for scientific reasons, but because it confirms their
prior belief in atheism and materialism. This group does not want to hear my
ideas, and they do not want others to hear my ideas. Sometimes they try to
stop my lectures in universities. There is another group of scientists who
accept the theory of evolution mostly for scientific reasons. It is not an
ideology for them. So they are willing to listen to alternative ideas. It is
scientists in this group who invite me to speak at universities, invite me
to speak at leading scientific institutions (like the Royal Institution in
London and various national academies of science in Europe), agree to hear
my papers at scientific conferences, etc. They may not agree with everything
I say, but at least they are willing to listen. This is important. If ideas
are going to change, the first step is that scientists have to be willing to
listen to new ideas, new evidence. And finally there are some scientists who
actually agree with me. Of course at this point in time they are small in
number, but that is how these things go.
-“Forbidden Archeology” has one of the largest bibliography section I have ever seen in a written book. Here in Vestfold University College we learn that as more references we put in the bibliography section, the better will our reports and thesis become. The more scientific and accepted will our work become. How do your opponents deal with that matter when trying to kind of debunking your masterpiece as unscientific?
There are many reports of archeological evidence for extreme human antiquity
to be found in what I call the primary scientific literature--original
reports by archeologists and other earth scientists found in the
professional scientific journals. But these reports are absent from what I
call the secondary scientific literature, like textbooks, because of the
process of knowledge filtration. For the most part, the reports of
archeological evidence for extreme human antiquity are rejected simply
because they contradict the theory of evolution. Sometimes some additional
reasons for rejecting them are given by my opponents. One common tactic is
to give a list of possible ways in which the reports could be wrong: there
was some mistake in the dating, the object or bone may have slipped from
some higher more recent level down into some very ancient level of rock, and
so on. But you could also raise such possibilities concerning the evidence
that supports the current evolutionary theory. It is not enough just to
raise possibilities that could discredit the evidence. One should actually
show exactly how a mistake was made in the dating in a particular case. One
should show exactly how an object actually did slip from some more recent
level into some older level. But they do not do that. It is clear that the
main reason for rejecting the evidence is that it contradicts the current
evolutionary theory.
-Why do you think criticism of current evolution hypothesis (man evolving from ape) is so taboo and not popular?
There are many reasons. First it is just human nature. If I love somebody,
and someone tells me something bad about the person I love, I may not
believe it. I will refuse to accept it. I may even become angry at the
person who tells me. So today, many scientists are very much in love with
the theory of evolution, and therefore they do not like to hear things that
oppose it. On another level, it has something to do with the effectiveness
of the knowledge filtration system. The students who are being trained as
the next generation of scientists do not find opposition to the theory of
evolution in the official science curriculum. Therefore they think
opposition to evolution must somehow be illegitimate, or unscientific. I
therefore think it is important that opposition to evolution, alternatives
to the current theory of evolution, have some place in the official
curriculum. Finally, I think criticism of evolution is taboo because of
power. There are many kinds of power in the world: political power, economic
power, military power. There is also intellectual power. It is a very subtle
power, but a very real power. And we see that those who have power do not
like to give it up. For example, if one political party has a monopoly in
the political life of a country, or province, or city, it does not like to
give up its position. Or if one corporation has a monopoly in a certain
sector of the economy, it does not like to give up its position. Similarly,
if a majority group in the world of science has a monopoly in the education
system, it does not want to give up its position of power. For the past one
hundred years, the supporters of the theory of evolution have had a
government-enforced monopoly in the educations systems of every country that
I know of. Alternatives are banned by law, by government policy. This has to
change. Alternatives should have their place in the education system. A
majority of scientists now favor the theory of evolution, so let them have
the majority of textbook pages and classroom time in biology. But there is a
small minority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution. Their views
should be represented in a small minority of classroom time and textbook
pages (I would say five percent). And then let students make up their own
minds.
-Do you have examples of scientists being forced to shut up, thrown out of academic positions and personally hunted by media and academic elite, for proposing well documented and completely scientific alternative to the evolution hypothesis?
My field is the history of archeology. There are many cases in the history
of archeology, where scientists who presented evidence that contradicts the
theory evolution have been subjected to extreme negative reactions from
their colleagues.
In the 1970s, American archeologists led by Cynthia Irwin Williams
discovered stones tools at Hueyatlaco, near Puebla, Mexico. The stone tools
were of advanced type, made only by humans like us. A team of geologists,
from the United States Geological Survey and universities in the United
States, came to Hueyatlaco to date the site. Among the geologists was
Virginia Steen-McIntyre. To date the site, the team used four
methods of uranium series dating on butchered animal bones found along with the
tools, zircon fission track dating on volcanic layers above the tools,
tephra hydration dating of volcanic crystals, and standard stratigraphy. The
four methods converged on an age of about 250,000 years for the site. The
archeologists refused to publish this date. They could not believe that
humans capable of making the Hueyatlaco artifacts existed 250,000 years ago.
In defense of the dates obtained by the geologists, Virginia Steen-McIntyre
wrote in a letter (March 30, 1981) to Estella Leopold, associate editor of
Quaternary Research:
“The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data’, data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”
Although Virginia Steen-McIntyre had been a rising star in her profession, she now found
herself labeled by her colleagues as a troublemaker. She lost a teaching
position she held at a university in the United States, and her career as a
professional geologist was finished, because she had dared report something
that contradicted the theory of human evolution.
-Is it correct to call the hypothesis of that man evolves from apes, Darwin’s evolution theory? Was that the belief of Charles Darwin?
In his book the Origin of Species, Darwin did not directly say anything
about humans evolving from apelike ancestors. But the implications of his
theory were clear, and his supporters did almost immediately start to
promote this idea. Darwin himself presented the idea that humans evolved
from ancient apes in his book Descent of Man.
-In your book “Forbidden Archeology” you mention about an authority in a scientific elite academy named Thomas Huxley. This Huxley was one of the most respected authorities in the mid 1800. He wrote a letter to his wife shortly before official launch of Charles Darwin,s “Origin of species”. In that letter it was a statement from Thomas Huxley “...in a few days they will all believe that descends from monkeys…”. Can you tell more about that issue?
Darwin himself did not much like public debates. He left that to his
supporters, like Huxley, who was known as Darwin's bulldog. The event
referred to is a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science. At that meeting, a paper favoring Darwin's theory was presented.
And then there was a paper by Bishop Wilberforce, who opposed Darwin's
theory. Huxley debated Wilberforce, and the topic of humanity's ape ancestry
came up. Huxley spoke in favor of it.
-Why is it today so important to believe that humans evolves from apes and why are opponents of that hypothesis personally hunted by the academic elite ?
I have already said something about that. One reason why the political and
scientific leaders of society wish us to believe we evolved from apes has to
do with keeping us working hard to produce and consume more and more
material things. The goals that we set for ourselves, individually and
collectively, depend on our answers to the questions, "Who am I?" and "Where
to I come from?" If I think, "I am an American man," I behave as such. So,
for the past hundred years, the Darwinists, through their government
enforced monopoloy in the education system, have had the power to dictate to
us the answers to those very important questions. And the answers they have
been giving are very materialistic. We are told we are just chemical
machines, evolved apes. Therefore it is no surprise that our worldwide human
civilization is very materialistic. Most people believe that to produce more
and more material things is the main purpose of human life. This
overproduction and overconsumption is destroying our planet environmentally.
And the intense competition for material resources is the source of conflict
on all levels of human society. But this process of overproduction and
overconsumption also generates huge amounts of wealth. And this wealth flows
into the pockets of scientists who invent pharmaceuticals, weapons, and
consumer products. Most universities today are based on huge research labs,
financed by government and industry. So the scientists and universities who
produce pharmaceuticals, weapons, and consumer products get money and power
from all this. The corporations sell the drugs, weapons, and consumer
products and make huge amounts of money. The banks finance all this activity
and make money. The governments tax all this economic activity and make
money. And we ourselves are also caught up in this ever increasing
production and consumption of more and more material things. What if we had
different answers to the questions "Who am I?" and "Where did I come from?"
What if our scientists were telling us we are beings of pure consciousness
who have somehow entered the world of matter, and our main purpose should be
to restore consciousness to its original pure state (this is an idea I
present in my latest book, Human Devolution)? Our goals would be different.
We would be putting less human energy into material production and
consumption. We would be putting more human energy into developing the
resource of consciousness. But that would be bad for the current economic,
political, and scientific system, which is based on materialism. There are
powerful forces who do not want to see any change. For the current system to
work, it is essential that we see ourselves as purely material beings, as
chemical machines, and evolved apes.
-Why is it impossible for people today to just consider the possibility that maybe advanced civilizations existed thousands of years ago and maybe went under for some reason?
We want to consider our current overly materialistic civilization, with its
goals and values, as the only civilization, the best civilization. What we
consider "advanced" may not really be so advanced.
-A classic reply to the question above is:”Well, why don’t we dig up laptops, iPods and Flat screen HD Televisions if there was advanced civilizations before us ?”
First of all, a civilization based on advanced levels of consciousness may
not have made use of such material technologies. But even if we assume that
the advancement of civilization should be measured by the presence of such
material technologies, we have to consider that such things do not preserve
very well over vast periods of time. Plastics will dissolve. Most metals
will oxidize. After a few thousand years, what to speak of millions of
years, there would not be much left of laptop computers, etc. But stone
tools would survive over those vast periods of time. But in any case,
whether we are talking about high levels of human technology or low levels
of human technology, the first thing is that humans like us had to be around
to make them. So at least I have demonstrated that. In Forbidden Archeology,
I have demonstrated that humans like us have been present for many millions
of years on earth. I believe the whole story of the different levels of
technology that those humans developed over those many millions of years is
a topic for further research. Right now scientists are not looking for such
evidence. What I am trying to do is open the minds of new generations of
scientists to new possibilities. A laptop computer might not survive very
well in its present form, but perhaps it might leave a residue of mineral
deposits containing compounds that do not occur naturally. Scientific tests
might be able to detect such things, if scientists start looking for such
things.
-Can you give some examples of well documented archeological findings out of place (OOPARTS), suggesting existence of advanced humans thousand, maybe millions of years ago?
Most of the evidence I document in Forbidden Archeology is in the form of
human bones and human footprints showing that humans like us existed many
millions of years ago. In terms of artifacts, most of the artifacts I have
documented may seem primitive. It is in the form of stone tools and weapons,
but these are of the type that most archeologists would attribute only to
humans like us, not any kind of apeman or ape. Still, there are a few cases
that give signs of a higher level of advancement.
For example, in 1871, William E. Dubois, a researcher for the Smithsonian
Institution reported on a copper coinlike object found in a well boring at
Lawn Ridge in Marshall County in the state of Illinois in the United
States. The round copper object had on one side two human figures and an
inscription in an unknown language. The report was published in the
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (1871, vol. 12, no. 86,
pp. 224-228). The case is also discussed in the book Sparks from a
Geologist’s Hammer (1881) by A. Winchell.
From these sources, my research assistant and I were able to get the
drilling record of the well boring, which consisted of a list of the strata
the boring had gone through to get to the level that yielded the coinlike
object, at about 114 feet. At that level the deposits are of clay, which
could explain why the coin was preserved. A coating of clay would protect
the coin from oxidation. We wrote a letter to the Illinois State Geological
Survey, inquiring about the age of the deposits at that depth of 114 feet.
We were informed that the deposits were from the Yarmouthian Interglacial
period, between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago. This is quite astonishing,
because according to the currently dominant theories, humans like us did
not exist at that time. Actually, the first coins are supposed to have been
used in the eighth century BC in Lydia, in what is now Turkey. Similar coins
are supposed to have come into use around the same time in China and the
Indus Valley. But the discovery at Lawn Ridge shows that coins may have been
used long before that, as much as 400,000 years ago. Of course, coins
presuppose a civilization with a developed economy and government.
-Do you find some similarities between the dogmatic belief by the church in the 15th century that earth was flat, compared to today’s self declared truth tellers declaring that humans evolves from apes ?
Several centuries ago, the Church, through its influence on government, was
able to suppress the ideas of Galileo, who had some different ideas about
the cosmos. Scientists like to talk about how bad this was. But today,
scientists are the new Church. And through their influence on government,
they are able to keep a monopoly for their theory of evolution in the
education system. They are able to suppress alternative ideas. A couple of
years ago, the Council of Europe, pressured by scientists, passed a
resolution asking their member states to exclude alternatives to evolution
from their education systems. I disagree with this approach. It does not
respect freedom of thought in a democratic society. I think the proper
solution is to present alternatives to evolution in the science curriculum,
in a small percentage of classroom time and textbooks pages. That reflects
the reality in the scientific world, that the vast majority of scientists
accept evolution and a small minority are proposing alternatives.
-The debate between creationists and evolutionists is definitely not over and will keep on running I believe in a long time more. But we see a transition going on. More and more people around the globe are interested in paranormal phenomenon, meditation and consciousness. Is it scientifically to suggest that there is a reality above mere solid atoms (which in fact are not solid but consists of 99, 9999% space) ?
Where did human beings, with their attributes of mind and consciousness,
come from? Today the most common answer is a process of materialistic
evolution. But not everyone is satisfied with that answer, including me. In
my book Human Devolution, I have proposed an alternative. But before even
asking the question, "Where did human beings come from?", we should first
ask the question, "What is a human being?" Today many researchers believe a
human being is simply a combination of the ordinary material elements, but
when we look at all the evidence, we see it is more reasonable to say that a
human being is a combination not just of matter but also of a subtle (but
nonetheless material) mind element, as shown by scientific studies of
extrasensory perception and telekinesis, and an irreducible element of
nonmaterial consciousness, as shown by scientific studies of out of body
experiences. These elements must have some source, and this suggests that
our cosmos is a multilevel cosmos with levels dominated by increasingly more
subtle elements, ending with pure consciousness or spirit. Instead of
evolving up from matter, as most scientists now believe, consciousness
devolves or comes down from a level of pure consciousness, and becomes
covered by the lower energies of mind and matter. This process I call
devolution. But it is a process that can be reversed, through techniques of
consciousness transformation such as meditation, and yoga, by which
consciousness can be restored to its original pure state. And this is the
main purpose of human existence.
-Finally, anything you want to say to the Norwegian audience?
Hope to see you someday.
|