Adrian Teo wrote:
> Yes, Bert, they are not systematic errors, but they are nevertheless
> errors that are all too common. In the other report (which I can't
> recall the source), some of the errors were quite substantial ones. I
> see similar errors in psychology textbooks as well, such as
> embellishment of the "Little Albert" study and propagating the myth
> that Eskimos have many (sometimes a few hundred) more words for snow
> than English. Such frequent errors in textbooks should be a concern
> for all, regardless of whether they were intended or not, systemic or
> not.
>
> Fine, & if Wells' book were simply a criticism of science
> textbooks & a call for better science education there would be few
> intelligent people - especially scientists - who would disagree with
> him.
> But he is using the deficiencies in science education simply as a tool
> to try to discredit evolution. Of course that won't work with people
> who know how science really works but it will be effective with his
> target audience, people who are already suspicious of science & will
> be quite happy to seize upon further reasons to think that scientists
> don't really know what they're talking about. The whole procedure is,
> not to put too fine an edge on it, dishonest.
>
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 16:02:44 EDT