these are mistakes not connected to each other.
They are not presented as a basis to support a scientific or
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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:30 PM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution
> 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