Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution

From: Bert M (bert@massie-labs.com)
Date: Thu Apr 12 2001 - 20:51:21 EDT

  • Next message: psiigii: "Re: Answersingenesis: Feeling God's pleasure"

    Adrian,

    BUT,

    these are mistakes not connected to each other.

    They are not presented as a basis to support a scientific or
    philosophical viewpoint.

    Bert

    *************

    Adrian Teo wrote:

    > Hello Bert,Check this
    > out:http://www.escape.ca/~dcc/phys/errors.htmlThere was also an
    > article in our local papers several months ago about a team of
    > physicists who went through several textbooks and found some really
    > ridiculous errors, and some pretty substantial ones as well. Problem
    > is I don't remember who did that survey and where to find it.
    > Sorry.Adrian.-----Original Message-----
    > From: Bert M [mailto:bert@massie-labs.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:30 PM
    > To: Adrian Teo
    > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution
    >
    >
    > Adrian,
    >
    > Quite familier with Wells book and it is a good one.
    >
    > I am curious what you meant by
    >
    > (applies to physics texts as well).
    >
    > Bert Massie
    >
    > Adrian Teo wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute,
    > > presented at Whitworth College on his new book, Icons of
    > > Evolution, last night. I thought it was a polished
    > > presentation, and he did not go into the ID argument at
    > > all. His point was that the majority of evolutionary
    > > biology textbooks used discredited examples to support the
    > > Darwinian claims of common descent and modification. For
    > > example, the widely used peppered moths example to
    > > illustrate natural selection is based on doctored photos
    > > and the mistaken understanding that those moths actually
    > > rested on the tree trunks. The so-called Darwin's finches
    > > used as examples of speciation was based on extrapolation
    > > of data, and in actual fact, the data showed no net
    > > evolutionary changes, but rather, minor variations. He
    > > also talked about the well-known (among biologists but
    > > apparently still in textbooks) Haeckel drawings of embryos
    > > in different stages of development. Archaeopteryx was
    > > another example of misinformation. Wells made the claim
    > > that many professional biologists are not even aware of
    > > these problems because they have been trained with these
    > > textbook examples as well and never thought to question
    > > them. I am wondering if these perceptions of Wells are
    > > accurate, and if so, this is a major problem. Can ASA do
    > > something about this? Should publishers be persuaded to be
    > > more careful with what they put out?
    > >
    > > One parent asked a very good question of what she could
    > > do, given that the school district spent thousands of
    > > dollars on these textbooks and that some science teachers
    > > have been quite reluctant to admit nor see the errors in
    > > these books (applies to physics texts as well). Wells did
    > > not really have an answer for her.
    > >
    > > Adrian.
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 20:42:11 EDT