I'm inclined to believe that our prehistory is a lot more interesting than what the majority of scientists would have us believe. The problem is that archaeologists, paleontologists, and the like limit themselves to preconceived notions about prehistory, scientific dogmas, and of course, whatever will get them the most funding.
I bring this up because mainstream science refuses to study anything that might bring into question what scientists already believe about prehistory. It seems that any time a prehistoric anomaly is found, the scientific establishment is quick to explain it away as something mundane and forget about the whole thing or just ignore it. It's unfortunate that it is this way.
The reason I like researchers like Graham Hancock is because they dare to ask the questions that the scientific establishment want to ignore. Hancock himself is not a scientist but a journalist, but in many ways, I think he behaves more like a 'true' scientist than some of the scientists do. The biggest irony of this to me is that centuries ago, the religious establishment ostracized guys like Copernicus and Galileo for daring to suggest that the 'established fact' of the sun revolving around the Earth was false. Today, when someone brings up a new idea or suggests that the scientific establishment is wrong, the scientific establishment behaves similarly to the medieval religious establishment.
The best example of what I mean can be seen in Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Some people may watch that film and misinterpret the point it was trying to make. It's not just a film trying to prove the validity of Intelligent Design, it's a film about how the scientific establishment behaves when someone dares to suggest that what the scientific establishment believes is wrong. All of the scientists interviewed in the film were credentialed. But the ones that chose to say or write something that didn't fit with what was already 'established' either lost their funding or lost their jobs. One professor was even blacklisted and couldn't find a job teaching anywhere….all because she merely mentioned something about Intelligent Design during a cell biology class.
Intelligent Design was the topic of choice in Ben Stein's film, but scientific dogma isn't limited to just the theory of evolution. I was watching a film by Graham Hancock called Underworld yesterday that pointed out some underwater anomalies that archaeologists refuse to take serious. Archaeologists seem to be perfectly content ignoring these anomalies or explaining them away as some type of erosion and then just forgetting about the whole thing. Part of the problem is the lack of funding. But I think pride is probably a bigger part of the problem than the lack of funding. I think most of these tenured guys just don't want to find anything that may dispute what they have so proudly taught about prehistory for so many years. A lot of the younger guys are probably afraid to break away from what is 'established' for fear of being ostracized in the scientific community. I think another part of the problem is the theory of evolution. Simply put, the scientific establishment refuses to consider anything that may suggest advanced civilizations existed during prehistory because it doesn't fit with what they already believe about prehistory. Their research is dictated by their preconceived notions of what the prehistoric world was like. They already believe prehistoric man consisted of nothing more than hunter/gatherers, so they assume anything that suggests otherwise is wrong, misinterpreted, hoaxed, or some kind of odd looking erosion.
The irony here is that the scientific establishment knows there was an ice age thousands of years ago. With that in mind, isn't it ironic that the scientific establishment has no interest in underwater archaeology (typically, most underwater archaeology done today is in regards of old shipwrecks…not prehistoric civilizations)? Think about it. Most cities and civilizations of recorded history are built where? Near coastal regions and rivers. So isn't it likely that ice age civilizations would have been built near coastlines and rivers? After the ice began melting, those coastlines would have been flooded. So if the coastlines of the last ice age are now submerged, wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? Apparently the scientific establishment doesn't think so.
Here is a picture of part of the 'Bimini Road':
Mainstream science has said this is erosion. If it is erosion, then my first question is why is this erosion confined to this one spot? Why is it not a mile away in another direction? Why that spot? And how did it erode that way? For that matter, what do they expect it to look like in the future? Presumably, if it has eroded to look the way it does now over a period of time, then it must still be in the process of eroding. So what do they expect it to look like a 1000 years from now?
Here is some more 'erosion' from Yonaguni, off the coast of Japan:
I could ask the same questions about this that I asked about the Bimini Road.
These are just a couple of popular examples of archaeological anomalies found underwater. There are numerous others and Hancock cites some of them in his film. So again I ask the question – Wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? If so, why do mainstream scientists always try to explain away anomalous finds as something mundane like erosion? Are they afraid they might find something that will hurt their pride? Or do they just form a hypothesis based on their preconceived notions of prehistory? Or is it just the lack of funding? I think it is probably a combination of all those factors.
Imagine if North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia sunk today. Thousands of years from now, would there be scientists who assume that all men living during the 21st century were tribal men living in hunter/gatherer societies? Would they formulate their entire interpretation of 'prehistory' on the ruins of tribal civilizations found in the Amazon and Congo? Would they stomp their feet and bang their fists on the table because someone dared to suggest that there may be ruins of advanced civilizations underwater? Would the ruins of New York City be called 'erosion'?
I'm not criticizing the scientific method here. I'm criticizing the scientific establishment. And I realize that preconceived notions are not limited to the scientific establishment. Many people have preconceived notions about something, and oftentimes, research – scientific or not – is inspired by the desire to confirm a preconceived notion. Sometime research forms a belief, sometimes beliefs form the research. But what irks me about the scientific establishment is that they try to portray the image of being objective and logical, yet they are not always as objective and logical as they claim to be.
Wouldn't the logical place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater where ice age coastlines used to be?
I have a notion to believe that prehistory is much more interesting than what mainstream science has portrayed it to be. J