Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution

From: Todd S. Greene (
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 10:42:07 EDT

  • Next message: Todd S. Greene: "Re: YEC Article"

    Hi, Bert.

    Tell that to Martin Luther.

    Perspectives are interesting in how they affect the way we perceive
    things. They are mistakes and/or obsolete presentations. If we were
    living 350 years ago, you would not make the statement you made about
    the physics mistakes. Three-hundred fifty years of science has already
    done that much to completely alter your perspective, at least regarding
    physics. In another hundred years or so, perhaps the example will be
    evolution versus cosmology, rather than the physics versus evolution
    you're speaking of here.

    In case this hasn't yet been referred to (since I haven't been following
    the entire discussion here), here's an online review of Jonathan Well's

    by evolutionary geneticist Massimo Pigliucci, who teaches at the
    University of Connecticut. From his review:

         Since there are omissions, simplifications, and inaccuracies
         in some general biology textbooks, obviously the modern
         theory of evolution must be wrong. This is the astounding
         line of reasoning that provides that backbone of Jonathan
         Wells' Icons of Evolution.

    Todd S. Greene

    ###### Bert M., 4/12/01 8:51 PM ######

    these are mistakes not connected to each other.
    They are not presented as a basis to support a scientific or
    philosophical viewpoint.



    Adrian Teo wrote:

    Hello Bert,Check this out:
    There 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.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 10:34:04 EDT