This We Believe

I gave a quote from Jonathan Wells a week or so ago. Hugo didn’t like this one bit. It goes against what he desperately wants to believe. You can see his comments @
http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2011/05/philosophy-of-evolution.html

If you haven’t read that post, it would be helpful for you to do so now.


Hugo hated the quote from that post so much he pointed me to what he calls a “refutation” of Wells’ book. In this refutation we find the following comments:

“. . . no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution,”

Right, let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going to let anyone know what it is.
=====

“The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life."”

Funny how the refutation doesn’t mention that the experiment in question had nothing to do with early earth atmosphere. In fact these atheists chose the chemicals they did because those chemicals were the ones known to produce the results desired. Let’s not tell the student THAT!

This “refutation” contains another lie because if one can believe current atheist scientists, then the “evolution” of inanimate and inorganic gases (snerk) most certainly does have to do with evolution.
=====

“Darwin's finches are used as examples of an evolutionary process (natural selection), not as evidence for evolution.”

“And the prize for attempted obfuscation goes to - may I have the envelope please!” Hey, they’re only kids, they won’t notice our deception.
=====

“Archaeopteryx is frequently presented in discussions of the origin of birds, not as evidence for evolution itself.”

Mm, hmm because going from one species into birds wouldn’t be evidence of evolution.
=====


Then we’re told why we can’t expect to understand why falsehood, deception, outright lies and substandard evidence is shown to our children. It’s because we aren’t educated enough - you know, like those who teach evolution. Take a listen.

“To understand the depth of any scientific field fully requires many years of study.”

So they dumb it down for lessor mortals.
=====

“It is the goal of elementary and secondary education to give students a basic understanding of the "world as we know it," which includes teaching students the paradigms of a number of fields of science. In order to do this, teaching examples must be found. It is this need to find simple, easy-to-explain, dynamic, and visual examples to introduce a complex topic to students that has led to the common use of a few examples — the "icons."

Ya, “teaching examples must be found.” So we’ll just make something up.

Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco,
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;

. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.

. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

It doesn't matter if what we are telling your children is a lie, a deliberate deception. We're atheists. They should just trust us.
=====

“Yet, with our knowledge of the natural world expanding at near-exponential rates, the volume of new information facing a textbook writer is daunting.”

What he’s telling you is that “In one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”
=====

“it should not be surprising that introductory textbooks are frequently simplified and may be somewhat out-of-date.”

It’s beyond words.
=====

“In Icons of Evolution, Wells says: "Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000: xii). This is a serious charge; to support it demands the highest level of scholarship on the part of the author.”

We’ve come full circle. We’re back to, you can’t expect to understand that fraud isn’t fraud unless you have exactly the same level of education that I have.