The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Well that's definitely true, because there are blatant lies that are still presented in evolutionary textbooks, such as Haeckel's drawings of various life forms in different stages of development. Once an establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse and/or recant.

And when scientists were put to death by the (philosophical) ancestors of creationists, would you also have said that once the establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse it?

[gadgetlady 4]

And when scientists were put to death by the (philosophical) ancestors of creationists, would you also have said that once the establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse it?

It is universally true that once something is implanted in the minds of any establishment or even of the general public, it is difficult to reverse it. It's true for bigotry, for politics, for religion, and for urban legends. I don't advocate putting anyone to death for their beliefs, past, present, or future.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

What I'm saying is that at some point evolution theory had to go from not being generally accepted by the scientific community to being accepted enough by the scientific community to be taught in schools. The same situation could be extended to intelligent design; while the proponents of it do not number as many as the proponents of evolution theory, they may one day do so -- and they may also be right. Just as evolutionists once fought an uphill battle -- and won -- so are creationists fighting an uphill battle now.

To dismiss any theory because the scientific community doesn't accept it would mean that no new theory is EVER accepted.

The scientists that are pushing creationism IMHO are doing it for one of two reasons. Either money being paid to them by the Religious Right or a need to feel that their Christianity and its myths must be sustained at the expense of their scientific integrity.

[gadgetlady 4]

The scientists that are pushing creationism IMHO are doing it for one of two reasons. Either money being paid to them by the Religious Right or a need to feel that their Christianity and its myths must be sustained at the expense of their scientific integrity.

And that is the problem with your knee-jerk reaction to the theory. You refuse to even consider its scientific basis because you hold a philosophical and/or political disagreement with where you presume it comes from. You will not even entertain the notion that evolution could be wrong because to do so would cause your other beliefs to crumble. And so you disregard and mock a theory about which you know very little.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It is universally true that once something is implanted in the minds of any establishment or even of the general public, it is difficult to reverse it. It's true for bigotry, for politics, for religion, and for urban legends. I don't advocate putting anyone to death for their beliefs, past, present, or future.

And I am not accusing you of that. I respect your knowledge and your willingness to research and fight for what you believe, but the people you are relying on for research either have a political agenda or have sold out to those that have a political agenda.

Watching religion grab at straws for centuries to keep its need to prove the literal interpretation of the bible, has only shown a willingness to be very un-Christ-like. "Thou shalt not lie" has never been one of the Religious Right's strong suits.

I do not question your integrity, just the people that you are relying on.

No scientist needs to have a political agenda. No scientist should have a political agenda, yet we have read reports from cigarette company scientists for generations claiming that smoking is not harmful.

See who is paying the salary of any of the scientists involved in the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. If a Right Wing Religious organization is paying the creationist's salary, it does not prove the creationist is lying, but...

Follow the money.

[anonemouse 1]

So you don't consider that the complexity of life even remotely could suggest that a designer was involved? If you came across a fully constructed building, would you believe there was no architect?

No, I don't think that something being complex necessarily means it was designed. To use your architect analogy, I believe that evolution is the architect.

The same situation could be extended to intelligent design; while the proponents of it do not number as many as the proponents of evolution theory, they may one day do so -- and they may also be right. Just as evolutionists once fought an uphill battle -- and won -- so are creationists fighting an uphill battle now.

The theory of creationism and design are much older than the theory of evolution. They've already had their heyday, so to speak.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

And that is the problem with your knee-jerk reaction to the theory. You refuse to even consider its scientific basis because you hold a philosophical and/or political disagreement with where you presume it comes from. You will not even entertain the notion that evolution could be wrong because to do so would cause your other beliefs to crumble. And so you disregard and mock a theory about which you know very little.

There is no scientific basis. It is just an attempt to fit what someone observes with a preaccepted conclusion.

[gadgetlady 4]

No, I don't think that something being complex necessarily means it was designed. To use your architect analogy, I believe that evolution is the architect.

I think that requires a leap of faith, as much as religion does. I don't see how chance can be an architect.

The theory of creationism and design are much older than the theory of evolution. They've already had their heyday, so to speak.

The theory of evolution has been around since philosophers in ancient Greece espoused it. So it had been around for a while.

Furthermore, the age of a theory doesn't determine its veracity.

[anonemouse 1]

Here is some information on Haeckel's embryos, if anyone is interested.

[gadgetlady 4]

From that website, Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19 th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics.

Then why is it still in textbooks? Why do evolutionary textbooks still call on it? I agree that it's been discredited; I'm speaking to the issue of how difficult it is to recall an entrenched theory, regardless of whether or not it's true.

[anonemouse 1]

Complex Structures by Chance

[anonemouse 1]

Then why is it still in textbooks? Why do evolutionary textbooks still call on it?

Because some of it is relevant. Please, read the "Are Textbooks Really That Bad?" section of the site I posted.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yup, I read it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. YOUR author says:

This is not to suggest that textbooks are without flaw. I agree with Wells that the contortions by Balinski in his 1975 text to rationalize the biogenetic law are deplorable. I also concur that textbooks that are already giving short shrift to this particular subject ought not to be wasting space with Haeckel's illustration, which is not good biological data and is only of historical interest. (emphasis added)

So I guess the author's complaint is the manner in which the creation scientists criticized the textbooks or the underlying philosophy from which those creation scientists came, not that the textbooks were wrong. Methinks the [man] doth protest too much.

[anonemouse 1]

He also says this:

Wells is particularly incensed at the authors of introductory textbooks who, he claims, are misleading their students. I agree that he can reasonably argue that textbooks should not use the obsolete and inaccurate drawings done after Haeckel's work, but, in what I consider the most amusing line in this entire chapter, Wells expresses indignation that "Some textbooks, instead of reproducing or redrawing Haeckel's embryos, use actual photos." How dare those nefarious textbook authors use photographic data to support their ideas!

In his first appendix, Wells rates a number of college textbooks, giving them letter grades for how well their ideas fit with his. All the books get either a D or an F for their handling of vertebrate embryos. However, it is obvious that he is stacking the deck against them.

To get an F, a textbook needs only to use a version of Haeckel's drawings, claim that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry, and refer to gill slits. I agree that books should not use Haeckel's illustrations, unless it is to make a historical point. However, similarities in structure are evidence for common ancestry; it's a little unfair to penalize a book for making a valid point. Similarly, vertebrate embryos do have "gill slits", even if the associations of that term confuse Dr. Wells.

To improve their grade to a D, a book uses "misleading photographs" of real embryos instead of the Haeckelian drawings. Again, however, what is the objection here? These aren't fudged or inaccurate drawings. They are photographs of vertebrate embryos that accurately illustrate what they look like, that anyone with a microscope and access to embryos can see (Figure 3). Is it next on his agenda to condemn classes that allow students to examine live or preserved embryos in the laboratory?

What does a textbook have to do to get an A? First, it may not use misleading drawings or photos. Wells has not shown that the photos used in any of these books are misleading at all. Second, it should not use the term "gill slit". This is a capricious requirement; there is nothing categorically wrong with that particular term.

Third, it should discuss dissimilarities at the earliest stages (which is a good idea, but may be impractical in an introductory text) and call this a problem for Darwinian evolution. There is a difficulty in meeting this last requirement, however. The differences may be a problem for a Haeckelian model of evolution, but they are not a problem for modern formulations of evolution. A book that suggested that the early differences are a problem would be straining to misinterpret the evidence.

Finally, his fourth requirement is that the book must consider Darwin's theory of vertebrate origins to be wrong. I presume by this that it must use observations of vertebrate embryos to somehow argue that different vertebrates did not evolve from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, this conclusion does not follow from the evidence. The deep similarities in the process of development for all vertebrates support the idea that they are part of a common lineage; furthermore, progress in the molecular biology of development has been steadily confirming even greater homologies-it is simply not an option to even suggest that these organisms did not have a common ancestor.

One of the textbooks which Wells gives a "D" grade is one I've taught from for a number of years, Campbell's Biology. I took a close look at the relevant section of this particular book. I immediately found one serious shortcoming: this section is all of two paragraphs long, with one figure. It would be good to see more substance on this subject, especially in a book that is 1175 pages long, but one recurrent problem in the books that Wells has targeted is that these are surveys of all of biology, from biochemistry to ecology, so it isn't too surprising that everything gets less depth of treatment than we would like. However, I found nothing in what Campbell has written which is objectionable. He begins with the point that "Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development", and illustrates that with a photograph of an avian and mammalian embryo. This statement is correct, and the figure backs up the point. He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct. I do not see any errors of fact in Campbell's treatment of the subject, although I do think it is unfortunate that so little space can be spared for it.

[gadgetlady 4]

My issue is not with some random person's rating of a textbook and how or why they arrived at that rating. My issue is that biology textbooks still present the drawings even though, in the words of your author, they are "deplorable", a "waste of space", and you have to go through "contortions" to "rationalize" them.

My claim is that it is difficult to recant or remove supposed evidence for a theory even when it's not accurate. And then that so-called "evidence" takes on a life of its own. The fact that the drawings are still evident in modern-day textbooks when they were discredited in the 19th century proves my point. Just because your author doesn't like someone's commentary on the drawings doesn't make them, the drawings, any more valid. It just means he disagrees with someone else's reasons.