I don't think it's a theological slant, it's a xenophobic nationalistic slant -- Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it, and one of those pronouncements was that the chimp was the closest relative of humans (that was long before the discovery of DNA) and that all our ancestors came from Africa (unknowable then, still that way)..
“I don’t think it’s a theological slant, it’s a xenophobic nationalistic slant — Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it, and one of those pronouncements was that the chimp was the closest relative of humans (that was long before the discovery of DNA) and that all our ancestors came from Africa (unknowable then, still that way)..”
I agree to a point, and there is the “never question the foremost expert” stuff. But if there are any religious organizations helping fund a dig or project, you better bet on the fact that there is a “desired” findings slant from the start. And will they continue to fund it past the 6k year level? Would they insist certain findings be omitted from the collection because they don’t fit the desired results? I am absolutely sure this has been happening since the beginning of historical studies and it influences all the fields of historical study both directly and indirectly.
It is very important to look into the source funding the project before taking the findings as objective, unbiased, and most probable. Just look at the biblical bandwagon, just the discovery of a coin with Pontius Pilate on it instantly proves every word in the bible as literal fact in full and the undeniable existence of Christ. When in reality we know of Pontius Pilate from other non-biblical sources never mentioned at all. And this happens every time a find can relate to just one word in the Bible. Just go do a internet search for Pontius Pilate, you will find that almost every resource assumes the bible and Christ as literal fact as a predetermined prerequisite.
And know what? If this satisfies their own beliefs and does not suppress other real discoveries or theories then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem is many times it can, propaganda can indeed influence the chances of funding or acceptance of objective creditable findings. We even see it here, where every find that might be older than 6k is immediately discredited with theological bias in an effort to squash even discussing it. And I can’t even count how many history articles I have read on the net over the years that have absolutely been plagiarized, twisted, rewritten, and claimed to be an original to fit a theological narrative and audience without citation or credit to the true original source and facts.
I still maintain that when it comes to historical studies, there has always been a huge underlying biased theological influence that still bleeds into and affects everything both directly and indirectly, both consciously and unconsciously...