First, "evolutionist theory" has nothing to say about origin-of-life questions. This is a common misconception of those who neither understand Darwin's theory of natural selection nor understand basic biologic evolution. Instead of reading such drivel as "Icons of Evolution" maybe you should go to the University Marriott Library and check out "The Origin of Phyla" by James W. Valentine. It is, usually, a good idea to understand primary literature for yourself before accepting some convoluted thesis involving supernatural phenomena. Have you read Darwin's "Origin...", probably not, yet you have an opinion of his work based on hearsay. Many of the things you mention being taught in our high schools are being taught from an historic perspective, for example, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe as taught in science class or Lamarckian concepts as concerns biologic change. Haeckel is no exception. As a lesson from history, it is important to realize that Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia resulted in Russia falling far behind the rest of the world as concerns scientific progress in any biologic discipline. The same will happen to the United States if this nonsensical posture of infiltrating ID gibberish into the public school system is given political expediency. We are already seeing policies that stifle biologic progress. This from politicians who wouldn't know a stem cell from a toe nail. Above all things, our kids should be taught that stupidity is not a virtue. Remember, read "The Origin of Phyla" by Valentine. It will blow you away. Dave Gary On Aug 12, 2005, at 4:05 AM, James Cobb wrote:
Earlier I asked how one falsifies SETI.
I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew.
I was surprised to receive zero answers. I think abiogenesis should not be taught in our schools because it is not scientific. Is anyone else disturbed that it is, or are the concerns only allocated to the teaching of intelligent design theory?
Here are some other items that I think we should question being taught in our high schools:
o The fraudulent Haeckel embryonic images. In the march 2000 issue of "Natural History," Stephen Jay Gould noted that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and concluded that his drawings are characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification." British embryologist Michael Richardson, interviewed by Science after he and his colleagues published their comparisons between Haeckel's drawings and actual embryos, put it bluntly: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."
o Haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." No research level embryologist accepts this, yet it plants an image in impressionable minds that appears to be very persuasive toward acceptance of evolution of species;
o The fraudulent linkage of Haekel's images with von Baer's laws;
o Pictures of pepper moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural selection. It turns out that pepper moths do not rest on tree trunks, but hidden under branches. For this picture, the moths (dead or alive) had to be *placed* on the tree trunks and photographed. Yet this picture is endlessly republished to provide evidence for natural selection;
o Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation induced by natural selection. Someone else in this discussion has acknowledged that this is no longer considered by biologists as a legitimate example. Yet it remains in the textbooks;
I'll stop the list here, but there are others. These items are routinely taught to impressionable minds, but are not accepted by the best biologists. Does this concern anyone?
Note, for more on this subject I cite Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution," from which some material above is quoted.
Jim ---- Jim Cobb jcobb@acm.org
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com