Via Pharyngula I learn of The FAQ the Discovery Institute ought to use.
A sample:
How do you recognize when something is Irreducibly Complex?
Something is Irreducibly Complex when proponents of Intelligent Design can't imagine how natural selection could have produced it
Pretty funny – and so true.
For lightning to exist, you must have:
Clouds
A negative charge in those clouds
Rain
Ground
A positive charge in that ground
A certain range of distance between the ground and the clouds
An unbelieving person, animal, or tree to be targeted
Without any of these, lightning couldn't exist, therefore Zeusdidit.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 05, 2006 at 11:17 AM
That almost funny. The ID people do bring us several issues with text book accuracy. Not all of it relates to ID vs. Evolution.
Evolution can be looked at in two different ways. Macro and Micro. Some believe Micros has some validity but the macro theory is full of holes.
When I was in school they used the spotted moth to support evolution. Unfortunately the was proven as a hoax nearly a century earlier. They also still used the horse which again was proven to be a hoax as well. They had put critters from the goat species in with the horse or something to that effec. The text books also used embryos that showed the similarities between human and other mamals. Unfortuneatly this too was proven as a hoax as well. Some of this information may still be in the text books.
I like the one about the grand canyon being formed by the Colorado..........it's impossible. The beginning and end of the river are both lower than the center of the canyon so unless water for a period of time flowed up hill an idiot wrote the text book. I for one don't want my kids lied to by teacher, professors or anyone else that I pay my taxes to to educate them.
Posted by: Terry | March 08, 2006 at 01:47 PM
Moths: PRATT fall!
Embryos: PRATT fall!
Grand Canyon: They're both lower now. Do you have evidence they were lower way back when?
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 08, 2006 at 02:54 PM