Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Condorman]

You are here.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, and notice how the thread has taken on a whole new attitude, this morning it was nice and calm with people debating each other without too much personal attacks etc, then ALS shows up and the thread goes to hell in a handbasket.

Amazing no one can figure out where the trouble is coming from. It's a mystery. Meanwhile, the theological pin-head angel-counting society (THPACS) had its usual contentious meeting on this thread last night. At least I can sleep through those.

[ThinkPlease]

More rhetoric and no facts at all that the Icons are not false ones as Wells showed very clearly with numerous scientific sources. Wells has the facts, and they are correct which leaves only slander and rhetoric as a defense by evolutionists. Yes, Haeckel's embryos were a fraud - and the garbage LIE they supported is still being taught in schools. That's the point.

Did you read the article, or are you just spouting off? Wells doesn't want to teach the facts, he wants people to teach propoganda.

From the article (on Haeckel)

From the article:

"Wells opens the chapter by telling us what Darwin thought about development and evolution. Wells uses about 5 different quotes from the Origin in an attempt to show that Darwin was advocating recapitulation in spite of what the data showed. To do this, he distorts the history. Wells tries to connect Darwin to Haeckel so that he can use that to dismiss Darwin. Wells says that Darwin was not an embyrologist and thus he relied on Haeckel (Wells 2000:81). Anyone familiar with the history of biology knows that this is impossible. Haeckel did not publish his Generelle Morphologie until 1866 (where the much maligned embryo drawings appear; Gould 1977), 7 years after the publication of the Origin. Wells quotes Darwin's praise of Haeckel in his sixth and final edition of the Origin in such a way as to obscure the fact that Darwin lauds Haeckel for his phylogenies, not his embryology. The quote is not even from the embryology section of the book; rather it comes from the classification section, in the final sentence of which Darwin praises Haeckel for using homologous features (including but not limited to developmental ones) to generate classifications for organisms. Darwin is praising the application of his theory by Haeckel."

...

"The grading scheme employed by Wells is designed for failure. This is because Wells assumes all drawings to be "redrawn" from Haeckel and gives any book with a drawing an F (Figure 11). Wells does not explain how one would determine whether they are simply redrawn from Haeckel; in any case none of the books appear to contain redrawn figures (Figure 10). Using more accurate pictures only earns a book a D. In order to earn a C or higher, a book must not use "misleading drawings or photos." This amounts to complaining that textbooks shouldn't allow students to be misled by reality!"

Please try to read what you criticize.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your kind words! May God abundantly bless you, scripter! Hugs!!!

[js1138]

What sort of research would you propose to show that the defective gene needed for vitamin c synthesis in the great apes and people really serves a purpose, and isn't just a fossil showing that we share a common ancestor with the rest of the grerat apes?

Ooooooh! An actual research program for the IDers. I can't wait.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Nice documentation. In spite of this, I predict that the "Darwin supported slavery" comment will continue to appear on FR.

[VadeRetro]

(THPACS)

Whoops! I mean TPHACS. Or maybe TPHDACS: Theological Pin-Head Dancing-Angel Counting Society.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements! IMHO, sometimes we are called upon to plant a seed. Someone else, later on, would then see the fruition of the Holy Spirit.

[PatrickHenry]

Amazing no one can figure out where the trouble is coming from. It's a mystery.

This image is brought to you by "FRATT":
FReepers Against Tractionless Trolls

[VadeRetro]

Finally, I get to be a FRATT boy!

[CobaltBlue]

Stultis - thank you for taking the time and trouble to put Darwin's own words up for all to read. Good job.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Misunderstanding of the nature of science leads to the misunderstanging of science of nature. Hegel's rejection scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge destroyed the ability of an entire nation to oppose the Nazi's.

[CobaltBlue]

Sorry, didn't catch the Charlton Heston reference.

[exmarine]

But the Constitution does not prohibit it. And, as a strict constructionist you, of course, understand the Constitution does not grant rights.

What are you talking about? You need to read the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 Amendments). The Constitution secures these rights by LAW. You also need to read those parts of the Constitution I mentioned (Article III, 10th Amendment) which confine the SCOTUS to interpretation of the EXISTING LAW ONLY and gives States autonomy in matters not covered by the Constitution (e.g. Texas sodomy law).

[exmarine]

Thanks for the websites. I have briefly visited and will tag it for later. I have heard of Patrick Henry college - I believe that's the one that was refused accreditation for political reasons.

[ThinkPlease]

Um. This link is a rebuttal of a different rebuttal than the one I posted. The link you just posted:

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm

is a rebuttal of: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/tamzek1.htm

not: http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/

Which I just posted.

While the article you posted is relavant, the article I posted is much more thorough and comprehensive than the article your link rebuts. Check it out.

[scripter]

Hey scripter...how was vacation?

As usual, too short!

[VadeRetro]

All I find in that one is Heartlander resonding with another link (#77)

Yes, there's a link there, but in typical creo fashion he also pasted the contents in-line right above the link lest anyone reading down the thread not see him citing a forbidding-looking article with tables and discussions of chemical experiments, genes, and fossils. Moreover, ALS then instantly reposted the thing onto this thread.

At least two factors compel them to act this way. One is that they're acting like the bozo in the cafeteria who sits next to you while you're eating and starts witnessing to you whether you like it or not. The other is that they really don't have much supporting data or even much of an illusion of supporting data, so any little shreds of pretense they can scrape together get paraded about and waved in faces like the bloody bedsheet from an Arab's wedding night.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, misuse of quotations (real and imaginary) isn't confined to Creationists, vide.

[CobaltBlue]

Hi jennyp - I have never read Hegel but did read Mein Kampf.

If you've ever read it, Hitler was not one for tightly woven philosophical arguments like Marx and Lenin. He was trying to express some things that were hard to put into words so he tended to be rather mystical.

The only really articulate fascist was Mussolini, but even he did not compose an over-arching Fascist manifesto.

I've read elsewhere Peikof's argument that sort of conflates Marxism and Fascism as simply being two versions of statism, and I partially agree and partially disagree.

For the source of Fascist economic statism, I would go back to Walther Rathenau, a Jewish industrialist, who invented a concept known as Rationalization or Industrial Rationalization during WWI as a way of controlling production for the war effort. We never read about Rationalization anymore, but it was a big fad in Germany from WWI on. Stalin was impressed by the concept and introduced it in the Soviet Union.

Boiled down into a nutshell, Rationalization is simply the concept that capitalism is too messy and wasteful, and central planning by educated bureaucrats is more efficient and can eliminate the mess and waste.

It was, in part, an attempt at standardization for mass production.

We had standards boards, too, and still do, but they were not, for the most part, run by the state, but by private industry.

Back to Hitler.

Hitler, more than anything else, in my opinion, was guided by mystical feelings about race. He believed that every person was a member of a race and had deeply rooted characteristics because of their race. Thus, Jews, no matter how well educated and no matter how much they wanted to be different, would always be Jews.

One of the things most people don't know about the Holocaust is that the Nazis spared people who were of mixed German/Jewish ancestry depending on the percentage of Aryan blood and whether the person was a practicing Jew or not.

If you really understand how Hitler thought of the German people aka "Aryan race," watch "Triumph of the Will."