Haeckels' Drawings Part II

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that textbook authors are not evolutionists?

---

The people who approve textbooks often are not, actually.See, Texas is the second largest state that purchases textbooks (second only to California), therefore textbook producers have to kowtow to the anti-science tendencies of the Texas Board of Education if they want to sell their books there.There was recently a lawsuit over an environmental science textbook written by a scientist being rejected in favor of one funded by the mining industry. linkBut to answer your question more directly, the people who write high school science textbooks are often NOT evolutionary scientists. They are often not professional, practicing scientists at all.University texts dealing with evolution are written by evolutionary scientists, which is why their quality is so much better and you will not find Haekel's drawings portrayed as accurate in them.If you can find me a high school science text written by an evolutionary scientist that inappropriately includes haekel's drawings, you might have a case.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-23-2005 10:35 AM

quote:

---

Besides, the fact that some showboating evolutionist may have committed a scientific fraud over 100 years ago - and some profit minded texbook writers and publishers may have perpetuated it - does not make any difference as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the TOE. The TOE stands on its merits, regardless of the failings of people who may support it.

---

Exactly.Evidenctly, because high school texts were inaccurate for some time (even though evolutionary scientists don't usually write high school texts), this means that all of Biology is suspect, according to randman.I suppose that when high school history texts fail to mention the extent to which the Native Americans were persecuted randman will suspect that Early American history is all a fraud.

quote:

---

So why don't we argue current issues in evolutionary thought, such as DNA homologies among related species, rather than dwelling on the past?

---

Because it would break the CreoCode regulation #49:"If at all possible, avoid discussing any actual modern evidence for evolution and instead obsess about a tiny, irrelevant issue."