With a few tweaks, that book is ready for Texas and Florida.
Just find and replace the name “Allah” with “God” and nobody would notice.
Feels the author knew he was writing bullshit and tried to actually sneak the truth in, in a way that’s undetectable to the extremists vetting the thing.
Oh, look; it’s more conflating of evolution with abiogenesis, alongside complete shortsightedness about the scales of space and time involved.
I was taught almost the same thing in a conservative Christian school. The thing that unlocked understanding evolution for me was natural selection. Sure, the base mutations are random, but only the ones that lead to a greater chance of survival are the ones that stick around. That’s not random, it’s targeted.
Why is it in English?
Well Britain did a little colonizing in that area of the world.
I find that hard to believe. The british are nice people who respect other nations and have never stolen a chunk of ireland with murdering.
Because it’s fake.
deleted by creator
My favorite thing about the “even humans can’t make life” argument is that when you point out that we have actually made the kind of rudimentary precursors to life in laboratories, they just say “see? It needs an intelligent mind to make it!”
And my least favourite thing about it is it assumes that somehow science is finished and therefore capable of everything possible.
Oh? I’ve seen several similar claims in media that always, on closer look, ended up as some combination of already organic/live parts with synthetic parts. Did we ever managed to make somehing “alive” strictly from something synthetic/dead?
I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn’t create life, but in the words of Forrest Valkai, we have steps 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 100 for abiogenesis. Creationists right now like to say “haha, you don’t have step 3!” But when we do reach step 3, they’ll still be able to point to 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on. And when we do reach all those steps, creationists will pivot, and say “haha! You admit that life was intelligently designed!” As if the laboratory conditions that scientists use aren’t simulating the mineral and nutrient rich conditions of the pre-life oceans, and as if there weren’t billions of cubic meters of water for it to randomly happen in over hundreds of millions of years
I’m not familiar with experiment and I certainly don’t subscribe to any creationist logic. But until science can create life from death (a proof that we understand it well enough) we can’t really claim much about it or eliminate intelligent desing, however unprobable it seemed. And as far as I know, currently there isn’t even consensus on definition of life.
Are we just ignoring that this is an obvious Photoshop?
It’s not obvious to me.
The chapter is titled “evolution” and the fact that we’re on figure 24.16 leads me to believe there are at least fifteen other images in this chapter. If that’s the case, it seems unlikely this section would be so far back in the chapter.
The section above literally talks about the results of natural selection on speciation.
When comparing content between the two sections, the top had lots of scientific vocabulary and creates valid points. The below section has multiple misspelled words and bad grammar. Tonally, very different.
Most obviously, the line spacing in this section is about half what it is in the above section.
Idk… In Turkey natural selection and speciation are in the curriculum but as far as I can tell it’s forbidden to mention evolution. Doesn’t seem like a large jump of logic to include a “btw evolution is wrong” section.
Also the line spacing on the right page seems closer to the bottom section.
Why is this Pakistani textbook printed in English?
I like that apricots and figs are clearly appreciated as higher forms of life than starfish and hawks. 
It’s not very clear how loins fit in that list, but then I’m not an evolutionary scientist.
It reads like they switched to the grocery list at some point, and I have to say it’s sounding rather tasty.
I don’t think the book author is, either…
This was hard to read for many reasons, including the run-on sentences and poor grammar. My favorite parts, however, were probably these excerpts:
- “cannot be the result of chance vents”
- “Primal soup”
- “Loins”
Texas called, and wants their book back
Loins
Nice piece of comedy in this sea of fucking idiocy.
A biology text book that doesn’t know about DNA or RNA? What jest!
Florida is leaking
My favorite part is that the first paragraph presents an example of evolution, and then the second paragraph said “evolution is bullshit.” They probably took a preexisting evolution-believing textbook and squeezed in a paragraph here and there, but they can’t keep the book self-consistent.
A classic case of proof by contradiction.
