Fake But Accurate Science

I'm having a low-key day today. My husband's off at a sibling-fest, and I'm taking the opportunity to read to my heart's content. Okay, okay, I'm doing the odd bit of housework now and then, so I'm not completely at leisure, but enough so that I'm searching a bit farther afield than usual in my quest for mental stimulation. The Internet is so chock full of current, pertinent information that I wouldn't have thought to get my mental kicks from something that's at least five years old, (insert gasp here) but it's a strange world, and occasionally things do stand the test of time. Here's a paper from 2001 documenting textbook fakery used to support the theory of macro-evolution.

One of my pet peeves, in a small-scale kind of way, is how often I run across the argument that anyone who has not bought into the idea that life randomly evolved on this planet, but actually believes there was a designer/creator who made it all happen, hates and fears science. I know lots of Christians folks, and I don't know a one that runs in terror at the first sign of scientific reasoning. Most of the Christians I know believe that, because God created an ordered universe, we can understand that universe, as far as our limited capacities allow, and that scientific study and experimentation are wonderful tools to help us grasp some of the complexity around us, and make the most of the resources God has given us on this planet. Still, I see the accusation everywhere that Darwinian evolution is a proven fact, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that has Swiss cheese for brains, or simply can't face reality and must make up fairy tales to help them function in the big scary world. (Does that sound too sarcastic? I told you this was one of my pet peeves.)

Well, speaking of reality, the essay I've linked to has a look at school textbooks, from high school to graduate level, and examines some of the "evidence" still being used way back in 2001 to lend credence to the theory of macro evolution. Yes, it is a theory. I know that will come as a shock to some of you, but there are actual scientists who call that theory, and the evidence used to support it in school textbooks, into question. Much of this evidence doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny. In an essay called "Survival of the Fakest" Jonathan Wells puts some of the standard pillars of Darwinian theory to the test, and questions the standards of the texts that still rely on them. This isn't a quick read, but it's really worth the time if you are interested in the question of origins, but please, if you read the essay and still want to cling to the theory of evolution as gospel, and keep the old proofs as your standard, don't use the "fake but accurate" line. It's been done before.