Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 29 2010,08:05)|
|I know of textbooks dated as late as 2004 that use colorized versions of Haeckel-like drawings and they are not there to provide “historical context.” On the contrary, they are used to argue on behalf of evolution. |
Could be interesting....
Will he be able to provide a specific title? I doubt it.
Well, let's start a-checkin'. StephenB actually came through:
—San Antonio Rose: “Which books? I was thinking my text had photographs comparing embryos. But now I wonder if they were color drawings. I may have been brainwashed without even knowing it. LMHO.”
Here are a few of the more recent ones of which I am aware. There may be more.
I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*
II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*
III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)
IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)
V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)
VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)
VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)
VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)
Oh, BTW, wanna take a guess how Stephen "knows of" these books. Well, if you said "direct, personal experience" you do not win a prize:
|By the way, the above list [@64] was taken from Casey Luskin’s article, “What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel’s Embryos.” It’s well worth reading.|
I left in the asterisks since I don’t want to tamper with the evidence.
A Luskin article? Oh, Jesus. What a weaselly prick. Creationist argumentum ad cut-and-paste at it's finest. Gotta love the "well worth reading" bit, too. Nice touch.
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio