No it isn't, but thanks for the falsehood. The number of actual frauds in the 140+ year history of evolutionary biology is extremely small. If you can list even ten (out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the field), I'll be amazed.
Speaking of falsehoods, however, let's look at a small sampling of the times that creationists have lied or misrepresented evolutionary biology or the evidence for it:
How many more would you like?Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.
(Quick aside -- Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek, do you condone this behavior of creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells, Jody F. Sjogren
Yawn. Read Icons of Evolution FAQs to learn just how badly creationist Wells misrepresents and outright lies about his subject matter. If, of course, you actually want to *learn* about this topic, instead of just reading creationist falsehoods in order to cling to the dogma that evolutionary biology "must" be a house of cards... Are you intellectually honest enough to do so?
The author retraces the reasoning of proponents of evolution from Darwin to the present to show what he sees as their empirically false, and frequently faked conclusions.
No, actually, Wells just lies about most of it. Which is sadly typical for creationists.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/072197-2.shtml EVOLUTION Posted on July 21, 1997
...and the "expert opinion" of a science fiction novelist is worth what, exactly?
The spirit of true science is simply to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not select and twist it to fit any preconceived notions.
Contrary to the misrepresentations by creationists, that *is* exactly how science operates. It's just that the creationists screech like little girls when scientists point out that "following the evidence wherever it leads" is exactly what prompted the development of the field of evolutionary biology. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS. So deal with it.
Isaac Newton didn't have any difficulty reconciling his religion with his science.
That's because fundamentalists don't see any conflict between the laws of motion or calculus, and their preferred religious beliefs. And there isn't any. Evolution, on the other hand, is seen by them as a challenge to their dogma, and thus it Must Be Denied (even though many Christians have no problem reconciling their religion and evolutionary biology, and in fact the MAJORITY of Americans who accept evolution *are* Christians, contrary to the creationist canard that evolution is only promulgated by "God-hating atheists".)
Two books that started me rethinking my ideas on the subject were: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1986) Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson (Regnery Gateway, 1991)
Sigh... Both so severely flawed that I despair of the damage they've done to your knowledge. Yes, I'm serious. Both attack a misrepresented CARTOON VERSION of evolution, not the real thing, and are classic examples of what's known as a fallacious "straw man attack" (like beating up a scarecrow effigy of Arnold Schwarzeneggar instead of the real guy and then declaring "victory").
And I debated evolution with Johnson online back in the early 90's. Not to put too fine a point on it, the guy's an idiot when it comes to evolution. He has an extremely poor understanding of what the field of evolutionary biology *actually* consists of, as well as the evidence it's based on. Instead, he has a very sketchy, mistaken impression of it (probably from reading other creationist twaddle), and his only skill (typical of a lawyer) is being able to *sound* convincing when he tries to give the impression that he actually knows his topic and that the "flaws" he has identified in it are a) valid, and b) honest descriptions of what evolution actually says and the actual state of the evidence. Both are incorrect.
Denton suffers from similar hubris/incompetence.
But don't just take my word for it -- post what you feel is the STRONGEST blow that Johnson and Denton each strike against evolution, and then I'll be glad to show you why and how they're dead wrong (and likely incompetent and/or dishonest to boot).
Or if you want to start learning how badly those gentlemen have misrepresented their source material (all too common among creationists, see my links above), start here:
Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views