Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 16:02:02 EDT

  • Next message: James W Stark: "More general design thread"

    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
    > "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 16:02:44 EDT