![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yendiSome morons in South Carolina are attempting to get Creationism put back into the schools, and using the standard review of textbooks as one method.
This response to a Creationist reviewer, in particular, is wonderful.
My favorite specific responses from within that document:
• Page 385: Curiously, the reviewer complains that the appendix has been mistakenly cited as a
vestigial organ when it actually performs a useful, if non-essential function. This comment suggests
that the review does not understand the meaning of the word “vestigial,” which does not imply that
an organ is without function. Rather, it means that the organ is reduced in size and importance, a
“vestige” of its appearance in other organisms, as our text correctly notes. The comment also
suggests that the reviewer has not read our book carefully, since we do not cite the appendix as such
an organ.
• Page 385: The reviewer makes the curious claim that we “fail to cite a resource where Charles
Darwin outlines his theory of evolution.” Darwin outlined his theory in his book On the Origin of
Species, as we previously noted, so this objection of the reviewer is without merit.
• Page 414: I do not have a copy of the textbook which contains this particular question, and
therefore cannot comment on this criticism. As soon as I am able to obtain such a copy, I will
address the reviewer’s concerns on this question.
This response to a Creationist reviewer, in particular, is wonderful.
My favorite specific responses from within that document:
• Page 385: Curiously, the reviewer complains that the appendix has been mistakenly cited as a
vestigial organ when it actually performs a useful, if non-essential function. This comment suggests
that the review does not understand the meaning of the word “vestigial,” which does not imply that
an organ is without function. Rather, it means that the organ is reduced in size and importance, a
“vestige” of its appearance in other organisms, as our text correctly notes. The comment also
suggests that the reviewer has not read our book carefully, since we do not cite the appendix as such
an organ.
• Page 385: The reviewer makes the curious claim that we “fail to cite a resource where Charles
Darwin outlines his theory of evolution.” Darwin outlined his theory in his book On the Origin of
Species, as we previously noted, so this objection of the reviewer is without merit.
• Page 414: I do not have a copy of the textbook which contains this particular question, and
therefore cannot comment on this criticism. As soon as I am able to obtain such a copy, I will
address the reviewer’s concerns on this question.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 07:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 09:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-20 04:02 pm (UTC)Well, that's all the resume *I* need. This guy can TOTALLY teach my kid science!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-21 02:25 pm (UTC)