Whee, amusing idiots
May. 29th, 2002 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
napoleonherselfI'm poking around the web to get my sources together from a paper I wrote a few weeks ago on peppered moths. I keep turning up articles by creationists that make the same amazingly stupid claims over and over again. Ergo, let me note a few things:
- The peppered moths are not a deliberately-perpetuated lie. There's evidence to suggest Kettlewell was on the right track, as well as evidence that he was wrong. We just don't have the full picture yet. Also, please do not throw the word "fraud" around like it was candy, that's a legal term and could probably get you sued for libel if these textbook authors thought you were worth it. And the photos are "faked," you say, simply because photographers stuck dead or torpid moths to handy surfaces and snapped pictures? By your logic, my anthropology book had LOTS of faked pictures. Pictures of monkeys and apes in zoos. Monkeys and apes don't really live in zoos in the wild, but our children will grow up believing that they do! Shock! Horror!
- Haeckel did not "fake" his drawings. Have you even looked at any of them besides those two plates that get shown over and over again? There were four or five different editions of that stupid book, and Haeckel kept refining his drawings to the point where they looked very much like actual photographs of embryos. But then, it's easy to overlook this evidence and concentrate only on the two famous plates from the earlier edition; then you're automatically right! Cool! I wish I could overlook hundreds of pages of evidence when it suited me! Also, the very very first piece of evidence that Haeckel was convicted, or even tried of fraud was a newspaper article written in the 1990s ('94, I think, probably wrong). No original, period documentation. None.
- Social Darwinism was not formulated by Darwin. It was formulated by Spencer. And it was justified by invoking the name of God. I'm not sure how this makes Darwin a racist and darwinism a horrid racist doctrine, but then, I am stupid that way.
- Yes, Piltdown Man was a fake. That was also almost a century ago. Let it go, folks. If you have to keep pointing to something that happened four generations ago as proof that what's going on today is wrong, then your position isn't exactly stable.
It's really a pity that evolutionist thinkers tend to be more sneaky with their incorrect arguments. There's just no room for amusement then.
- The peppered moths are not a deliberately-perpetuated lie. There's evidence to suggest Kettlewell was on the right track, as well as evidence that he was wrong. We just don't have the full picture yet. Also, please do not throw the word "fraud" around like it was candy, that's a legal term and could probably get you sued for libel if these textbook authors thought you were worth it. And the photos are "faked," you say, simply because photographers stuck dead or torpid moths to handy surfaces and snapped pictures? By your logic, my anthropology book had LOTS of faked pictures. Pictures of monkeys and apes in zoos. Monkeys and apes don't really live in zoos in the wild, but our children will grow up believing that they do! Shock! Horror!
- Haeckel did not "fake" his drawings. Have you even looked at any of them besides those two plates that get shown over and over again? There were four or five different editions of that stupid book, and Haeckel kept refining his drawings to the point where they looked very much like actual photographs of embryos. But then, it's easy to overlook this evidence and concentrate only on the two famous plates from the earlier edition; then you're automatically right! Cool! I wish I could overlook hundreds of pages of evidence when it suited me! Also, the very very first piece of evidence that Haeckel was convicted, or even tried of fraud was a newspaper article written in the 1990s ('94, I think, probably wrong). No original, period documentation. None.
- Social Darwinism was not formulated by Darwin. It was formulated by Spencer. And it was justified by invoking the name of God. I'm not sure how this makes Darwin a racist and darwinism a horrid racist doctrine, but then, I am stupid that way.
- Yes, Piltdown Man was a fake. That was also almost a century ago. Let it go, folks. If you have to keep pointing to something that happened four generations ago as proof that what's going on today is wrong, then your position isn't exactly stable.
It's really a pity that evolutionist thinkers tend to be more sneaky with their incorrect arguments. There's just no room for amusement then.
