I finally got around to reading some of the lovely books I picked up at my visit to the Discovery Institute last year. I came across a study guide called “Icons of Evolution”. I thought I’d scan the pages and share it with you good people chapter by chapter so we can ridicule study its contents point-by-point. This first installment includes the introduction and why Darwinism should be utterly discarded scrutinized. Since I can’t post pictures of the pages large enough to read, I’m including links to larger versions underneath the images. Enjoy!
Cover:
Table of Contents :
Introduction, Page 1:
Introduction, Page 2:
Let the games begin!
Really? The first question is:
“Why is it important for scientists to compare theories with evidence?”
seriously?
Nobody expects the Icons of Evolution! Our seven main weapons are embryos, homologies, fossils, finches, mutant fruit flies, antibiotic resistance, and abiogenesis! Oh, wait, that last one’s not evolution. Our SIX main weapons are…
It was nice of them to outline the entire book in the inroduction so we can dismiss it immediately. “Evolution is wrong, therefore goddidit. This is what we call science.”
Pinheads.
The first page of the introduction did not even start off *that* bad. Except for the (according to my opinion) ridiculous habit of posing questions to which the answer had just been given. But that is probably just my nitt-picking nature. Hmmm, must be a good trait if it evolved all this way into me :-p
On the second page they state 7 examples of evidence that “most people” always come up with when asked about neo-darwinism. These are, according to the book, icons of evolution. But on page 1 the book stated that “An icon of evolution is an image or symbol that is thought to represent key evidence for Darwins theory of evolution”.
So, that would mean *any* icon or symbol (although why limit it to just these?) that is evidence, wouldn’t it? What about the immense and overwhelming rest of all the evidence? Let me guess… they have no clue how to refute that so the book just ignores it. Am I right or am I right? :-)
(Oh, and just for the record: I do not assume the book even manages to *actually* refute ANY of the evidence, perhaps only things that are generally considered not to be evidence at all. By “most people”, that is.)
@Kate: Knuffel! :-)
Teh wowz. So THAT’s what neo-Darwinism is supposed to be. Wait, what?
If I’m reading this right, there’s no umm beliefs attached to this neo-Darwinism other than genes having something to do with evolution. Which makes it not an ‘ism’ but yet another strawman to knock down. All written in black and white on page 2.
Yay! This is fun!