The Joy of Rewriting Textbooks?
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes, "Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?'", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts.
First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not.
She went on to give an illustration about "scientists getting excited" and discussed chemist Neil Bartlett. He made an important discovery, so textbooks had to be rewritten. Well, yes. When real discoveries are made, textbooks need to be rewritten. Not so much with evolutionary "discoveries" — certain examples of fraud, such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, are still in the textbooks. Other examples of bad evolutionary science are frequently found in textbooks.
We keep hearing about new discoveries that frustrate believers in deep time and evolutionists:
Science is exciting and fun. When used to appreciate and understand the work of our Creator, the sense of awe deepens. Biblical creationists in scientific disciplines often say that they are motivated to know how God created something. Being excited about EvolutionDidIt and evosplaining with "it evolved" is fatuous. If textbook writers are excited about updating real science, good for them.
A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes, "Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?'", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts.
 |
| Credit: Freeimages / Jean Scheijen |
I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and definitions that emerge from research may eventually be proven wrong, the process for gaining new knowledge — the scientific method — is the best way we have of learning about the world around us. That’s what’s wondrous to a scientist— to know that we understand the periodic table, or our solar system, or the animal kingdom, a little bit better, because someone has come up with a new idea that’s a better fit for all the data points that have been gathered over the years.It sure is nice to have a sense of wonder about science and knowledge. Many of us do. I wonder about the first part of that quote, where she's "one of the lucky ones who was trained to see science as a process". How are other people trained, then? Also, she said that science is "a way of looking at the world". That sounds to me like an empirical worldview, which is rather sterile. As many creationists (and others) have said numerous times, people interpret data according to their presuppositions.
She went on to give an illustration about "scientists getting excited" and discussed chemist Neil Bartlett. He made an important discovery, so textbooks had to be rewritten. Well, yes. When real discoveries are made, textbooks need to be rewritten. Not so much with evolutionary "discoveries" — certain examples of fraud, such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, are still in the textbooks. Other examples of bad evolutionary science are frequently found in textbooks.
We keep hearing about new discoveries that frustrate believers in deep time and evolutionists:
- Human-Chimp genome is not as close as we were told
- Dinosaur evolution needs to be rewritten again
- Magnetic field reversals are shown to happen far more rapidly than previously believed
- Several finds, including rapid speciation, fluster evolutionists
- Neanderthals were not stupid brutes, but fully human
Science is exciting and fun. When used to appreciate and understand the work of our Creator, the sense of awe deepens. Biblical creationists in scientific disciplines often say that they are motivated to know how God created something. Being excited about EvolutionDidIt and evosplaining with "it evolved" is fatuous. If textbook writers are excited about updating real science, good for them.