I can't argue with your point, George, although I would be reluctant to
accuse Wells of dishonesty so readily.
From: george murphy [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:02 PM
To: Adrian Teo
Cc: 'Bert M'; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Jonathan Well's Icons of Evolution
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,
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 16 2001 - 12:13:45 EDT