Free We Are the Children of the Stars by Otto O. Binder Page A

from ancient, extinct species into the present day, and much of it is based on fossil finds of early men, overlapping somewhat with paleontology, the search for fossilized bones of any and all creatures. In fact paleoanthropology is the combination of the two that deals with manlike fossils.
    Anthropology is one of the most fascinating fields into which the human mind is today making inquiries. Some of the finest contemporary work is being performed within this science discipline, and some of the most talented men available to science are attracted to the field. No one reading through the great number of excellent publications in this field can help but admire the ingenious means by which these researchers have managed to wrest information from the silent and buried records of the past.
    If, in the following pages, we seem to be severely critical and sometimes outspoken against orthodox views, it is not the anthropologists personally we are jumping on, but their theories . And then only if the theory deserves castigation for being speculative, misleading, or downright unscientific.
    This means no lack of respect for the fossil-hunters themselves, nor for their hard and often dedicated work; but we reserve the right to analyze and, if necessary, reject or even tear apart any concept or theory that is patently untenable. There will probablybe a few hardnoses with arrogance and inflexibly orthodox attitudes, who will react only with scorn and even rage at our criticisms of so-called established facts in the field.
    But the “facts” of one generation often, in the light of new knowledge, are the discards of the next.
    And who can set himself up as a guarantor of such facts, which are often tentative and short-lived?
    Let us remind the anthropologists in general that their greatest authorities for some forty years proclaimed the Piltdown Man's fossil bones as being unquestionably authentic before the blatant hoax was exposed. Anybody can be wrong – anybody. There are few absolutes in anthropology, and all is subject to change, review, reinterpretation.
    Perhaps it might be considered impertinent for laymen like the authors to cast doubt on the theories and testimonies of the experts and authorities, but we do so only with honest intent to point out fallacies, inconsistencies, and below-par postulates, insofar as they can be reinterpreted as supporting a totally new theory – namely, the one we champion in this book.
    And if we are “amateurs,” we must reiterate that Darwin himself was a “rank amateur.”
    If the gentlemen of anthropology will be unbiased and examine our suggestions on merit alone, without prejudgment or partiality or condemnation out of hand, we feel that perhaps a whole new avenue of research into Man's origin can be revealed, to their own eventual benefit. We ask only for a fair hearing.
    We, the authors, are not anthropological “authorities,” but we do quote and present the comments of very authoritative experts whenever possible. We submit that even the amateur can have sufficient discrimination and common intelligence to point out errors and misdirections that crop up in any area of scientific endeavor. The important thing is for the authorities not to isolate themselves haughtily as unassailable, thereby protecting false premises and sterile concepts as well as the body of valid material.
    Although anthropologists on the whole probably cannot readily accept the quite radical theory proposed in this book, itwill undoubtedly have some impact on the field in ways unforeseen as yet. We do not claim all our ideas are correct, any more than all presently accepted anthropological data are correct, but only that some ideas may hit the truth and thereby earn some respect for our new theory.
    Certainly, we do not expect and cannot accept a blanket denial or wholesale rejection of our entire work.
    We feel that the same respect we have toward the anthropological experts should in all fairness be