Despite being claimed as science, there is a lot of propaganda used in pushing the Big Band to man evolutionary view of origins. This can include making evidence look better than it really is, making evidence look more favorable to evolutionary models than it really is, applying labels that are more favorable to evolutionary models, is the tendency to not include evidence contrary to evolutionary models.
A good example of making evidence look better than it really is Piltdown man and Nebraska man, the fact that they were both eventually proven false shows neither one was sufficient to justify the claims made about them. Piltdown man was a skullcap and partial jawbone that could not even be demonstrated to belong to the same individual let alone the way they were depicted. It was even worse for Nebraska, which was based solely on a tooth that turned out to belong to an extinct pig. The problem is that they still do this kind of stuff today such that with most so-called transitional forms with so-called transitional parts often among what is missing. Tiktaalik is another good example because likewise, large portions of it are missing. This is quite common among so-called transitional forms. They tend to be fragmented, but evolutionary propaganda tends to ignore this.
A good example of making evidence look more favorable to evolutionary models than it really is the so-called whale evolutionary series. Not only is it usually presented as a nice sequence despite all of them officially being side branches. They tend to show what they think the animals look like rather than the actual fossil evidence. When the actual fossils are considered it looks way less like a transition occurred because once again some of them are actually fragmented. Another factor that is generally ignored is the actual size difference between the land animals in the whales being depicted. Another good example is the claim that humans share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. This is the best possible picture because it includes only substitutions in easily aligned sections, it ignores insertions and deletions as well as parts that cannot be aligned. Consequently, they are in both cases engaging in pro-evolutionary propaganda because they are painting a better picture than reality.
They also apply labels that are more favorable to evolutionary models, for example, they have officially moved humans into the same family as apes not because of any new evidence. On the contrary, the reason for doing this is the presupposition of common descent. Furthermore, they have stopped claiming that humans have evolved from apes but that we are apes. They are also now claiming the birds aren't just descended from dinosaurs but they are indeed living dinosaurs. All of these are examples of using labeling to push universal common descent evolution by propaganda.
Finally, there is a tendency to completely ignore any evidence that goes against evolutionary models. This has been the case for a long time. However, a recent example with Tiktaalik, is the discovery of tetrapod tracks that date by their own system as older than Tiktaalik. This is of course just one example of much many can be given. The simple fact of the matter is when something does not fit with evolution or their chronologies every effort is made to explain them away and then any response is actually ignored. The biggest example of this is ignoring all of the problems with abiogenesis under the blind faith that the problems will one day be solved.
So, evolutionists use propaganda to push not just universal common descent evolution but the entire Big Bang to man story. Children are subject to it in schools and any relevant scientific media that they are exposed to. I have encountered a number of people whose views on evolution are clearly not based on any facts they were actually given but on this type of propaganda.
