quote:

---

By Douglas Baynton

Saturday, December 17, 2005; Page A23

School boards across the country are facing pressure to teach "intelligent design" in science classes, but what would such courses look like? Thankfully, we need not tax our imaginations. All we have to do is look inside some 19th-century textbooks.

The one science course routinely taught in elementary schools back then was geography. Textbooks such as James Monteith's "Physical and Intermediate Geography" (1866), Arnold Guyot's "Physical Geography" (1873) and John Brocklesby's "Elements of Physical Geography" (1868) were compendiums of knowledge intended to teach children a little of everything about Earth and its inhabitants.

These textbooks seem also to have been intended to provide solace for the existentially anxious. All of them offered in one form or another the reassurance that "Geography teaches us about the earth which was made to be our home." Earth by itself "could not be the abode of man," advised one. "Therefore, two indispensable agents are provided -- the sun and atmosphere." The entire vast history of the planet was summed up as the "gradual formation by which it was made ready for the reception of mankind." The lay of the land had been thoughtfully arranged for our benefit: "As the torrid regions of the earth require the greatest amount of rain, there are the loftiest mountains, which act as huge condensers of the clouds." Because the breezes that blew down mountainsides cooled the inhabitants below, the highest were located in the hottest parts of the world "for the same reason that you put a piece of ice into a pitcher of water in summer, rather than in winter."

---

For example, the man hailed as the smartest man in America by 20/20 (he has an IQ of 195) has contributed a chapter to the book "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" reviewed here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236317/104-0579282-1388765?n=283155
An excerpt of that chapter can be found at his website http://ctmu.org/ (first link)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776 is an article pointing out possible issues regarding the theory, as does the online book
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE17Bbl.html is the book's extensive bibliography.
http://www.rae.org/ (A website with many articles and free online books disputing darwinism as it is presented. http://www.rae.org/dendar.html is an example- religious, but not completely devoid of scientific merit, as I understand it.

Some other books are:
- Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism - James Perloff
- "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" - Dr. Lee Spetner
- Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. - Michael Behe
- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Dr. Denton
- A New Science of Life - Rupert Sheldrake
- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism - Richard Milton
http://alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm contains some of his questions from the book, and some other intesting ideas as well.

Again, I am not supporting ID as fundamentalists propose it, but for science to propose Darwinism as more-or-less the final word on evolution while dismissing alternative ideas that could have some merit in light of the above seems like bad science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
...for science to propose Darwinism as more-or-less the final word on evolution while dismissing alternative ideas that could have some merit in light of the above seems like bad science.

---

It certainly does seem like bad science except that science doesn't do that. And besides, the only people who talk about Darwinism are those who would replace science with pseudo-science. The rest of us know that there's no such thing.

A number of Darwin's ideas and theories have long since been discredited. Those that remain a part of current biological teaching are there because they continue to conform with 150 years of experimental evidence.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

Mr. Anonymous is wise to remain anonymous, as he has failed the "child" test.

He suplies us with links to the usual ID apologists (some of the ones who testified in the Dover case, the ones the trial judge said were dishonest about their religious motivations and beliefs), like Michael Behe.

Really, you have to be a real ignoramus to believe this stuff, and I include those who "teach the controversy" like Mr. Anonmyous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
A number of Darwin's ideas and theories have long since been discredited.

---

quote:

---

Actually I remember reading in an article that Darwin plagiarized the theory of evolution. I can't find the article though, it was on a bulletin board. I dunno if this was true

---

Darwin developed the theory of natural selection. His notebooks establish that without question. Another person, Alfred Wallace, was also developing the theory on HIS own.

Dearwin became aware of Wallace's work, and made a successful effort to publish his work first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Darwin developed the theory of natural selection. His notebooks establish that without question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Darwin developed the theory of natural selection. His notebooks establish that without question. Another person, Alfred Wallace, was also developing the theory on HIS own.

Dearwin became aware of Wallace's work, and made a successful effort to publish his work first.

Wallace did have the basics of the theory correct. But he was less thoroughgoing than Darwin, less radical. Most importantly, he beleived that humans were a separate group which had not evolved from apes. They were God's creatures.

---

I found this site.

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html

It says 4 men were involved with the theory.

One of the people it mentions, William Lyell, never wrote a word about animals or species. So I find it hard to credit him with authorship of "Origin of Species".

He WAS one of the two geologists, along with Hutton, who developed the concept of deep time. That is, that the world is really old, and that what happens geologically happens in a uniform way over long time periods.

Without deep time, evolution would not have been possible. So, it is fair to say that Darwin based the "Origin" on work done by Lyell and Hutton.

But that is a lot different than them being involved in the creation of the theory itself.

Reading two or three of Steven Jay Gould's books on this would be helpful to clarify things. One of the books is on-line in its entirety:

Daily Kos - Kent Hovind is an old fashioned fire and brimstone operator who tours the nation tirelessly giving Young Earth Creationism pep talks and offering to debate scientists who support evolution, in a manner disturbingly similar to traveling evangelical revival-n-heal'n schemes. His distortions of science and his underhanded tactics are legendary, even among his fellow Young Earthers.

quote:

---

Darwin's ideas and theories have been substantially confirmed as correct in all important aspects

---

quote:

---

Homo Sapiens deftly employs both docu-drama and interviews with key scientists to illuminate the remarkable story of the origins and development of our species. Seminal moments like the discovery of tools, adaptation to climate change or the hunting of large mammals are re-enacted in this ambitious documentary. At the same time, current thinking on subjects as diverse as the evolution of human belief systems, changes in migration patterns and the emergence of cave painting is revealed.

A sequel to the hugely successful A Space Odyssey (which posted record audiences and was seen by some 35 million viewers worldwide), Homo Sapiens is made by the same creative team.

Director Jacques Malaterre, Artistic Director Adrien Morot and Director of Photography Martial Barrault used meticulous set decorations, elaborate FX effects and a team of Montréal makeup artists who worked long hours to transform the cast into the believable prehistoric men and women we see on the screen.

---

[ 24 June 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]