No ‘good science’ for macroevolution
Daniel Szwaya said it well (June 19) when he wrote, “Good science is that which is supported by evidence, logical reasoning and can be tested experimentally. ... Good science will go wherever testable repeatable data and ideas will lead.”
Let’s try that on the evolutionary notion of the origin of first life, abiogenesis, which used to be called the spontaneous generation of life. That idea was prevalent in the 1600s, but scientific experiments by Redi, Spalanzani and finally Louis Pasteur in the 1860s falsified it. This notion of abiogenesis has been falsified every time it has been tested, yet textbooks claim that it is a scientific fact. That claim is a lie, which is not good science!
How about the peppered moths? They were peppered moths at the beginning and at the end of the multiple year study. No new moth species or other insects were generated, yet the textbooks claim that this was “evidence” for macroevolution. That claim is a lie, which is not good science!
How about the “evidence” for the “biogenetic law,” those faked embryo drawings by Ernst Haeckel? Those lies were still in the evolutionary biology text we used in 1999, more than 100 years after Haeckel admitted that they were lies. That is not good science!
These are just a few of the more than 25 lies used to provide “evidence” for macroevolution in the textbooks. Why is the idea so fragile that it must be protected from both truth and questioning as an authentic idea in science? Also, why must students be indoctrinated with lies to assure they embrace macroevolution and defend it as adults?
Walt Sivertsen
Grayslake