There is no guess about what the DI is. That's been established fact since the Wedge Document became public in 1998 and was reinforced during the Kitzmiller case. There is no room for argument of that fact among rational individuals.
As for my guesses about the article:
1) Check. Spot on the money. It focuses on very early experiments that have been addressed and readdressed many times over.
If that's the case, why do modern biology books keep misrpresenting these topics?
2) Check. A rating of "C-" is given despite the information including a full caveat about the experiment having been discredited by later evaluation simply because the caveat is given after talking about the experiment rather than before.
Why even bother presenting expreriments that have been discredited? If they have been discreditied, make it patently obvious.
3) Check. The provided quotes from the textbooks are uniformly short, often not even comprising full sentences, let alone proper quotations of entire paragraphs which would permit an honest evaluation of the tone of the textbook.
Easy, get the texts to see if the quotes were taken out of context. You are assuming that they were taken out of context. Guessing and assuming = poor argument.
4) Check. Includes citations of such scientific paragons as "Time" magazine, and the quotations selected from reputable sources are chopped and intentionally misrepresented. Evidence counter to their claims is ignored.
Red herring. You're going to discard the whole study because of a reference to "Time"?
Looks to me more like you chose not to address my "guesses" because they turned out to be uncomfortably accurate.
Looks to me like you're showing your bias.
ZV
1) Check. Spot on the money. It focuses on very early experiments that have been addressed and readdressed many times over.
If that's the case, why do modern biology books keep misrpresenting these topics?
2) Check. A rating of "C-" is given despite the information including a full caveat about the experiment having been discredited by later evaluation simply because the caveat is given after talking about the experiment rather than before.
Why even bother presenting expreriments that have been discredited? If they have been discreditied, make it patently obvious.
3) Check. The provided quotes from the textbooks are uniformly short, often not even comprising full sentences, let alone proper quotations of entire paragraphs which would permit an honest evaluation of the tone of the textbook.
Easy, get the texts to see if the quotes were taken out of context. You are assuming that they were taken out of context. Guessing and assuming = poor argument.
4) Check. Includes citations of such scientific paragons as "Time" magazine, and the quotations selected from reputable sources are chopped and intentionally misrepresented. Evidence counter to their claims is ignored.
Red herring. You're going to discard the whole study because of a reference to "Time"?
Looks to me more like you chose not to address my "guesses" because they turned out to be uncomfortably accurate.
Looks to me like you're showing your bias.
Facebook
Twitter