Many textbooks surveyed contained what I would call “faux-critical thinking exercises,” where students are asked to investigate the evidence, but only in a one-sided fashion.
Unfortunately, as this review has made clear, biology textbooks have a long way to go. Parents, students and educators who seek accuracy and objectivity in evolution-education will have to continue to be a “royal pain in the fanny” of textbook publishers.
Turning a protein shaped to do one particular job into a protein that does just a slightly different job (which most biologists, including myself, had thought would be as easy as pie) turned out to be much more difficult than expected.
Since I published The Myth of Junk DNA in May, there has been no response from the pro-Darwin authors I criticized in it. On September 23, 2011, however, John Farrell reviewed it for the Huffington Post.
When intelligent design (ID) proponents press neo-Darwinian evolutionists on the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce new functional genetic information, a common response from evolutionists is that they get angry and engage in name calling. That’s what happened when Michael Egnor asked How does evolution produce new functional genetic information?, and it again seems to be the case now after Jonathan Wells bravely observed that “duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content.” Mathematician and ID-critic Jeffrey Shallit responded by calling Wells a “buffoon.” Dr. Shallit then proceeded to offer an irrelevant definition of information which supposedly showed that Wells was wrong. William Dembski has responded to Shallit here, but Shallit’s Read More ›