Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1 of 301 (282623)
01-30-2006 2:19 PM


In Message 21, randman wrote:
..., but there is often a level of illogic and distortion in the articles I have read that basically places it, imo, in the arena of propaganda.
This thread is intended as a place where randman and other critics of talkorigins.org can provide details of the flaws and propagandistic tendencies of the to site, and where others can answer these critiques.
(suggest "Is it Science")

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 3:24 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-31-2006 8:24 PM nwr has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 301 (282629)
01-30-2006 2:23 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 301 (282641)
01-30-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
01-30-2006 2:19 PM


Haeckeling
They still insist the phylotypic stage is true, imo, resurrecting an unsubstantiated claim thoroughly refuted by Richardson's 1997 study titled:
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development.
MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
Also, in this article, he says:
We regard the phylotypic stage as an archetype and not a real entity.
MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
But talkorigins still insists the phylotypic stage is true (maybe they are inserting their own definition?).
What is the phylotypic stage?
Darwin said, "Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class." Early in the 19th century, von Baer noted that the embryos of different species could not be as easily distinguished from one another as are the adults. This is a simple observation that has been made numerous times in the past few hundred years, an observation that is not tied to any particular theory, whether of creation or evolution -- von Baer himself made these observations 30 years before Darwin published, and did not accept evolution then or later. That is, while vertebrate adults may look very different from one another, vertebrate embryos all go through a period in development in which they all resemble each other more strongly. This period is called the phylotypic stage.
Wells and Haeckel's Embryos
It is notable they do this in response to genuine and accurate criticism, some of which they found hard to deny and admit to, but rather than just admit Well's and other's are correct in denouncing the evo use of embryology and Haeckel, they try to resurrect a false claim, that of the phylotypic or highly conserved stage.
This is not the first time Talkorigins misuses the data in respect to embryology claims and Haeckel.
“Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny”
Thank you Andrew for your nice remarks. I want to comment on your comment that the Recapitulation Theory died about 1925 and that it has not appeared in school textbooks for years. Almost ten years ago in Ontario, Canada, creationists had a successful campaign to remove this theory from the High School curriculum. It was removed but then slipped right back in again the following year. To my knowledge it is still there. If the theory died in 1925 would you not agree that this is a disgraceful move on the part of certain people in the Ontario Ministry of Education and would you be willing to help remove the nonsense from Ontario’s school textbooks?
On page 277 of my book, In The Minds of Men, the illustration shows exactly how Ernst Haeckel cheated in 1868 to make the facts fit his theory. This was exposed as fraudulent in 1874 by Wilhelm His, and the theory should have died then and there, not in 1925. For those critics who would side-track the issue by pointing out that textbooks have replaced the old nineteenth century engravings of the embryos with modern drawings, this is of no consequence whatsoever. The textbook The Way Life Works by Hoagland & Dodson, 1995 published by Ebury Press, London, still used Haeckel’s drawings but took the trouble to colour them! Most readers will recall the famous row of embryos shown in the school textbooks. The usual argument for their retention is because although it is admitted that the stages of development (the vertical sequence) do not appear as Haeckel showed them, the horizontal likenesses of the early stages of the fish, the salamander, the turtle, the chicken the rabbit and the human are all virtually the same and illustrate embryonic homology. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London has recently exposed the so-called “embryonic homology” as another fraud. In his paper published in Anatomy and Embryology 1997, Vol.196 (2), p.91-106 he shows that the early embryonic stages of 39 different creatures including the fish, the turtle etc., are nothing like the same. Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution?
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp
I will be busy this week, and may after today not be logged on until much later, but can provide other examples of TalkOrigins distorting the facts and using faulty analysis.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-30-2006 03:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 2:19 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:59 PM randman has not replied
 Message 10 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 6:30 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 301 (282642)
01-30-2006 3:29 PM


talkorigins vs. bible.ca
here is a claim on today's bible.ca website:
quote:
This is one of three tracks featured at the 1989 Dayton, TN creation conference that was destroyed the next day. On August 12, 1989 Dr. Don Patton spoke at a creation conference in Dayton, TN. He presented compelling evidence that both human and dinosaur tracks were present at the Taylor Trail, including the above pictures. Two well known evolutionists were present and at least one was conspicuously disturbed by this presentation. Both flew to Dallas the next morning and went immediately to the Paluxy River. It is reliably reported that they were in the river that afternoon with an "iron bar." Three days before they were in the river the footprint was observed looking like the picture above. Three days after they were in the river, it was observed looking like the picture left. (Clear photography was not possible till the water went down several months later, when this photograph was taken.)
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
note two things: that there are no specific names of culprits listed, and there are TWO "evolutionists." here is glen kuban's rebutal to the claim, in which he quotes the following:
quote:
Prize Track destroyed once for all time by Evolutionist!
Saturday, August 1st, 1992 Don Patton spoke at a creation conference in Dayton, Tennessee. He presented evidence that all the data relating to the Taylor Trail was best explained by both human and dinosaur tracks. He featured -3B. Glen Kuban was conspicuously disturbed by this presentation. Kuban has acknowledged flying to Dallas, Texas and being in the Paluxy River the next day. He was seen in the river with an "iron bar." Three days before he was in the river this beautiful fossil footprint looked like the picture on the left. Three days after he was in the river, it looked like the picture on the right. Of course the track is so well scientifically documented, that whoever did this, accomplished nothing.
note now that there is only one "evolutionist" who is named specifically as glen kuban. the internet wayback machine confirms this change:
quote:
Prize Track destroyed once for all time!
On August 12, 1989 Dr. Don Patton spoke at a creation conference in Dayton, Tennessee. He presented evidence that all the data relating to the Taylor Trail was best explained by a combination of human and dinosaur tracks. He featured -3B. Glen Kuban, known for his opposition to Dr. Patton’s explanation, was conspicuously disturbed by this presentation. He immediately flew to Dallas and was in the Paluxy River the next day. It was reliably reported that he and Scott Faust in the river that afternoon with an "iron bar." Three days before they were in the river this beautiful fossil footprint looked like the picture on the left. Three days after they were in the river, it was observed looking like the picture on the right.
Official World Site of Paluxy River human & dinosaur tracks
so glen kuban is not making the accusation up, and bible.ca really did change their tune. i would also note that the two quoted passages are not the same. there are slight differences. but judging from the fact that i've just demonstrated two major changes, which side do you think is responsible?
quote:
Furthermore, contrary to the implications of the rumor, I knew exactly what the track looked like long before the Dayton conference. The rumor author says that fortunately the track was documented. What it neglects to mention is that I am the person who first found and documented it, and identified it as a metatarsal dinosaur track, in 1980--long before Patton ever stepped foot in the Paluxy. Moreover, Ron Hastings, other mainstream researchers, and I have published detailed documentation of the site based on years of careful field work, including the only rigorously accurate maps of the site. So if I destroyed a track there, I would be undermining our own work.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/rebutt.html
i wonder WHY they changed their tune. should we try to verify this particular claim? on this page talkorigins does something bible.ca never does. it cites sources. here are some:
quote:
Kuban, Glen J. 1984, Researcher Doubts Tracks On Paluxy Were Made by Man. Cleburne Times-Review, Oct. 21, p. 3A.
Kuban, Glen J., 1986a, The Taylor Site Man Tracks. Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kuban, Glen J., 1986b, A Summary of The Taylor Site Evidence. Creation/Evolution, V. 6, No. 1, p. 10-18.
Kuban, Glen J., 1986c, Elongate Dinosaur Tracks. In Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley, eds., Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-72
Kuban, Glen J., 1986d, Color Distinctions and Other Curious Features of Dinosaur Tracks Near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley, eds., Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, 1989, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 427-440.
Kuban, Glen J., 1989a, Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks. NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Special section.).
Kuban, Glen J., 1989b, A Matter of Degree: An Examination of Carl Baugh’s Credentials. NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 6, p. 15- 20.
Kuban, Glen J., 1992, Do Human Footprints Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona? Origins Research. V. 14, No. 2, p. 7, 12, 16.
while we're at it, here's the hastings papers that the same page cites:
quote:
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1985, Tracking Those Incredible Creationists. Creation/Evolution, Issue XXI, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1986, Tracking Those Incredible Creationists: The Trail Continues. Creation/Evolution, Issue XVII, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 19-27.
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987a, New Observations on Paluxy Tracks Confirm Their Dinosaurian Origin. Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987b, Creationists' "Glen Rose Man" Proves to be a Fish Tooth (as Expected). NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 14-15.
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1988, Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Man Tracks. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (Journal of the ASA), Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 144-155.
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1995, A Tale of Two Teeth, or, the Best of, the Worst of Teeth. Creation/Evolution, Issue 36. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
it seems both of these guys had been writing about paluxy years before the lecture. here's a copy of one of those paper, courtesy of glen kuban's personal website: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm notice that a description and picture of +3 is present.
so, let's review.
  • the articles on talkorigins are by the actual paleontologists who cataloged and described the paluxy tracks years before the creationists got in on the action.
  • the articles on talkorigins cite scientific research studies
  • the bible.ca site changed its page to make the rumor more vague
  • bible.ca kept the allegation, although proven false.
which one looks less reputable? keep in mind also that paluxy is mentioned on aig: in the "don't use" faq.
quote:
”Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed”see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
this doesn't mean they think it's false, neccessarily, just that they thought the "arguments were either factually incorrect, or were very dubious and unsafe, even counterproductive, to use" (cite). they also mention on the same page that the interpretation that the paluxy site demonstrated humans and dinosaurs living together "had serious problems."
now, i don't mean to factually debate the issue here, or talk about what those problems are -- we have a thread for that. but aig, a very prominent creationist site, considers bible.ca to be essentially dishonest.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 301 (282649)
01-30-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
01-30-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Haeckeling
On the first point the statement does not contradict Richardson's statement.
For instance to continue one of your quotations
We regard the phylotypic stage as an archetype
and not a real entity. Like Owens archetype, the
vertebrate phylotype applies to all vertebrates in
general, but to no one species in detail.
But this agrees with the statement quoted from t.o.
while vertebrate adults may look very different from one another, vertebrate embryos all go through a period in development in which they all resemble each other more strongly. This period is called the phylotypic stage.
The other criticism is a quote from a creationist but does not include any clear citicism of the t.o website. Indeed the article states that it is a reply to comments posted in the talk.origins newsgroup. The newsgroup is part of Usenet, open to all and thus cannot be directly equated with the website. So there is no actual criticism and the material being commented on may not even be on the t.o website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 3:24 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 301 (282661)
01-30-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
01-30-2006 3:29 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa.
Isn't it about time you guys accepted that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 3:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 4:51 PM randman has replied
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 7:43 PM randman has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 7 of 301 (282662)
01-30-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
01-30-2006 4:39 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
randman writes:
So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa.
Isn't it about time you guys accepted that?
Ah, on-topicness, the last refuse of he who cannot refute...
Well, rand, if you use creationist sites to critique T.O., then the credibility of creationist sites is fair game, yes?
Speaking of which, surely you understand that this portion of your quote is (to put it kindly) inaccurate? Either the fellow is remarkably ignorant of history or deliberately repeating a lie:
Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:57 PM Omnivorous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 301 (282664)
01-30-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Omnivorous
01-30-2006 4:51 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
Omni, by no one, in context he clearly refers to evolutionists as he mentions he and others had checked those facts and shown them to be wanting.
In general, I think his claim is accurate. Certainly, plenty of people before Richardson refuted the phylotypic stage, the Biogenetic law, and Haeckel's forgeries and did so pretty much in every decade since evos began to advance these ideas (although maybe not as much the phylotypic stage), but in general, evos kept using Haeckel's drawings, and assuming they genuinely believed they were likely to be accurate, I think the statement reflects the right emphasis, "no one" in the sense of evo publishers and teachers ever checked.
Obviously, some did check, but let's give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume evos just never took any of the prior claims the drawings were fakes seriously, and never checked.
I guess the alternative is we could think they all deliberately lied, but that seems to be going too far, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 4:51 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM randman has replied
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:18 PM randman has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 301 (282679)
01-30-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
01-30-2006 4:57 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
Well, you are wrong about what the Talk origins says abotu the embros.
From Icon of Obfuscation
quote:
In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and perpetuated even after being debunked (Haeckel's inaccurate drawings have actually been 'exposed' multiple times since the 1800's, the Richardson et al. (1997) article that Wells cites being only the most recent example). However, Wells as usual exaggerates the implications of this for evolution.
It further goes on to explain
quote:
Numerous other mistakes and distortions could be mentioned, here is but one. Regarding Futuyma's use of the Haeckel embryo drawings in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology, Wells writes (p. 109), "But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckel's embryos in several editions of his textbook, until a 'creationist' criticized him for it." However, an inspection of Futuyma's 1st and 2nd editions of Evolutionary Biology reveals that no such drawings were included in these editions. In the first edition, Haeckel's biogenetic law and the problems with it are discussed on page 153 in respectable fashion (this corresponds with page 303 in the second edition) -- and in fact the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions.
Since it deals with Haeckels embroys in depth, your critisms are unwarrented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:37 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 10 of 301 (282690)
01-30-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
01-30-2006 3:24 PM


Re: Haeckeling
You know, upon seeing another of the sources you are using, I find it very ironic you are using 'True Origins' , written by Jorge Fernandez, to attack talkorigins.
Amoung the things that Jorge Fernandez promots is 'Young Earth Creationism'. Some sample articles is trying to show that the earth is YOUNG, using helium, and it also trys to promote that there was , indeed, a world wide flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 3:24 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 301 (282698)
01-30-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
01-30-2006 4:39 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa.
since this was a claim on t.o about a specific creationist site, and that cite made claims about the author of several articles hosted at t.o, it's fair game.
the point is to show the claims t.o makes are indeed accurate, whereas the people making claims about t.o authors are innaccurate. it is a demonstration of what makes a cite reputable, versus a cite that is not reputable (even among creationists).
oh, and i'll have to remember this argument for the next time you bring up bill clinton.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:39 PM randman has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 12 of 301 (282702)
01-30-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
01-30-2006 4:57 PM


Dr. Haeckel's Critics Hyde
Omni, by no one, in context he clearly refers to evolutionists as he mentions he and others had checked those facts and shown them to be wanting.
Three possibilities: one, he means literally no one, in which case he is demonstrably wrong; two, he means no one but creationists, in which case he is demonstrably wrong; three, he means no scientists who accept the ToE, in which case he is demonstrably wrong.
The man is just flat wrong. My intuitive take is that he got carried away with his rhetoric--but he didn't go back and clarify it, did he?
I don't think evolutionary scientists need to explicitly repudiate every error made in prior centuries before getting on with their work, any more than Christians need to repudiate Ptolemy, and the persecution of Galileo, before discussing and critiquing modern science.
Do you?
I guess the alternative is we could think they all deliberately lied, but that seems to be going too far, don't you think?
Yes, I think so, but it would seem that many creationists, et al. disagree.
Let me put it this way, rand: the creationists' smears of evolutionary scientists who had little interest or knowledge of Haeckel's work, and their distortions and misrepresentations about Haeckel's work, its significance and reception, dwarf Haeckel's own sins, and they occur for the same reason that his did--Haeckel thought the essential truth of his observations justified manipulating the images to make them more persuasive. That is a continuing problem of human behavior in everything from faked stem cell research to staged miracles.
A good close-to-home example is your use of the Collector's Curve here at EvC to claim that 90% of all fossils that will ever be found have been found. Even though it was pointed out that you were representing an empty, data-free paradigm illustration as slam-dunk evidence, you never renounced your claim--you just left it uncorrected in the historical record, thus perpetuating an erroneous claim--sorta like bad drawings.
Where are the creationists/IDers/critics of evolution who ought to be soundly rejecting your error in order to preserve their own integrity and credibility?
Sound familiar?
Creationists adore Richardson's 1997 paper and his rejection of a highly conserved phylotypic stage, but never address Richardson's subsequent publications, including his 1998 letter to Science repudiating the use of his work to attack evolutionary biology, and a later paper which addresses the continuing importance of Haeckel's ideas.
Still, I am happy to learn that you reject the claims of critics who accuse evolutionists of deliberately misleading readers about Haeckel's drawings. That's progress.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-30-2006 08:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 4:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:39 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 301 (282743)
01-30-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
01-30-2006 6:01 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
They still insist the phylotypic stage is real. Sure, they have had to concede that creationists were correct in denouncing Haeckel, but then still try to insert a watered-down version which isn't true either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bernd, posted 01-31-2006 1:12 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 301 (282745)
01-30-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
01-30-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Dr. Haeckel's Critics Hyde
Bottom line is if evos really never checked out Haeckel's claims, they shouldn't have been claiming they were factual. The faxt is you evos still cannot come around to just admitting the error without trying to slam your critics, unjustly I might add.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:18 PM Omnivorous has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 301 (282746)
01-30-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
01-30-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Dr. Haeckel's Critics Hyde
Omni, Richardson honestly admitted and claimed it was one of the biggest science frauds in biology, and then came under intense pressure and criticism by other evos, people like you I might add, and then comes out and writes they are "good teaching aides."
What do I think a reasonable and objective person thinks of this turn-about?
That the evo debate is highly politicized and evidence is not looked at in a scientific manner. That's why Haeckel keeps getting used. It gets debunked every 10-20 years, but then the awful implications of that are apparent, namely that evos passed off fantasy as fact (not just false theory but forged facts), and then the evos work to justify themselves, and pretty soon the forgery and false theory, or some watered-down version of it, is back in business.
That's why a man like Richardson could on the one hand express outrage at the hoax, and so so publicly, and then actually change his tune 5-7 years later and try to restore Haeckel in calling his forgeries good teaching aides.
It shows the utter vacuity of the evo community in it's ability to come clean about it's icons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:18 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 6:44 AM randman has replied
 Message 20 by Omnivorous, posted 01-31-2006 8:42 AM randman has not replied
 Message 21 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 10:07 AM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024