Not exactly and I really do not care about Martin Luther.
Mistates in physics books are unfortunate. Things like "the universe has a
center" and therefore "there is (is not) a God" are then read to a
philsophical conclusion and agenda. However, the statement "the universe
has a center" when not connected to any agenda nor part of a larger
presentation of agrements, is simply a booboo.
ICONS is a great complilation of refutations of evolutionary myths. Some of
his logic may not be acceptable to me either. I lecture against for example
using arguements based on fradulant fossils as proof of anything except the
foibles of man (And guess what, we Christians have our bad guys als).
Evolutionists are capable of using bad science and textbooks are infamous
for not keeping up. If I were to write a book to support evolutionary
theory, I would avoid all of the ICON in Jonathans book and refer to the
fossil record etc.
No, I do not expect the evolutionists to write a letter of apology for such
fairly tales as "Miller Urey prove that live began on the early each through
lightening." But, how about acknowledging that this experiment proves that
intelligent beings can design and build and operate apparatus that makes
some biochemical compounds.
"Todd S. Greene" wrote:
> 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:http://www.escape.ca/~dcc/phys/errors.html
> 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 - 13:30:32 EDT