Guilt by association, then? Certainly, there are unscrupulous believers of evolution who have attempted to advance their careers through hoaxes. What of it? All three of these examples were eventually debunked by other scientists. There are also a good number of creationist charlatans who make their careers out of pandering to the beliefs of their fellow creationists.
Just another typical, unsupportable throw-away line.
Name one Creationist who has ever perpetrated a fraud like these evolutionists have obviously done.
Like democrats, we realize that evolutionists live by a decidely lower standard of truthfulness. Those who practice willful self-deception render themselves incapable of rational objective interpretation of scientific observations. It is no wonder then, that frauds perpetrated by the evolutionist's side of an argument are promoted so religiously, because they so despirately want to believe them, inspite of what they should, intellectually speaking, know better.
The evolutionist worships himself and the preceived powers of his 3.5 lbs of grey mater with self-adulation at the alter of evolutionary premise. Self-deception often starts in one's life, when man thinks he is his own creation. It leaves himself gullible to believing more frauds about his own self-importance as his self-directed validation is marketed by scientific charlatans -- like the Haekels, the Piltdown hucksters, and the Cardiff clowns. No, although dressed up that way, it's not got a thing to do with science, but the fellow's ego has been stroked in the name of "science," and he feels better about himself anyway.
Creationists on the other hand live by a higher standard of objective truth and are therefore of a higher order of scientific thought, intellectual maturity, and possess higher standards for scientific evidence than the Haekels that populate the evolutionary-thought mainstream. Credibility of the evolutionary model and the fossil record itself has even caused some serious misgivings amongst evolutionary stalwarts like James "Panspermia" Watson and the recently deceased, Stephen "punctuated -- you've gotta be kidding -- evolution" Gould. I'll even go so far as to say that I'll bet Gould has all the answers now.
Evolutionists are historically the fraud pandering charlatans. I realize that for your side that is an uncomfortable historical fact. But you must accept it and live with that fact just the same. Wishing it away won't work any better than wishing you actually had any credible data to support your premise. You can pretend that you do, as evolutionists so often do, but intellectual honesty will hopefully catch up.
In Gould's case, at least it was beginning to, but his pride was still getting in the way of clear scientific reasoning. "Punctuated" evolution as an expalnation for no fossil record? Simply laughable. Hardly a credible scientific explantion, a model without any scientific observation or even natural precedent, and certainly not a boost to the Harvard science department.
Intellectual honesty is understandably a commodity hard to come by, when there is such an admitted population of frauds in the evolutionary thought camp.
Your statement regarding Creationists is just so much factless hyperventilation, and is merely an expression of frustration-by-projection with your own side's demonstrated tendency to perpetrate fraud.
When evolutionists resort to lying to themselves and to the world as they do, one begins to realize how blinding their egos must be, casting aside well-reasoned sciencific thought to promote the frauds and quackery required of their premise. That quite simply is not science.