Evolution in Textbooks

So Conservapedia strikes again with this statment I came across this morning:

Textbook bias on Evolution vs. Creationism: video shows how textbooks are still wrong.

Textbok bias and evolution vs creationism I figured this ought to be good. So I clicked on the video and supprise, supprise it links you too Fox News and a video from their continuing comments on how all of our textbooks are wrong. Anyway here is the video:




Ok so lets start by saying that he introduces the guy from CI which is a creationist think tank and while they deny it I am pretty sure the Dover trial cleared that up. And he argues that the fight should have been over when the Texas school board said that we should teach objections to Evolution. Sure I am all for teaching legitimite scientific complaints to evolution but I am waiting for someone to raise some.

Then "they take a one sided look at evolution" what other side should they take. Now I assume that he means creationism but then the question becomes which version of creationism afterall for as many different religions as there are there are just as many creation myths.

Haeckels [sic] Embryos this has been covered so many times and pretty much every major video on youtube debunking creationist claims takes this on, so let me just summarize. Yes he faked the drawings, no the embryos do not look exactly like those he has pictured, they do however look similar and the genearl idea that he was trying to get across is evident in the pictures that most science books use today (which are actual pictures of embryos in development). He faked the pictures because he was trying to get the point across that these things look similar at early stages. You know who discovered that they were faked...that is right scientists not creationists.

Now they keep saying 100% of the books get it wrong reguarding evolution, that would be because they teach SCIENCE not religion, moving on.

Now I expected them to actually present facts as to why the tree of life is falling apart but they didn't. They presented some misinformation about how if you take one gene you get one version of the tree of life and if you take another you get another version. Maybe it is because you are looking at individual genes instead of the genome as a whole which when you compare organisms' genomes you find that hey guess what they not only don't punch holes in the tree of life they fully support it. I also couldn't find this article he was talking about so I will assume that I just couldn't find it, I like more information other than an article in journal x.

BTW he is not taking a side is complete and total BS sorry

Ok so if you made it through reading my whole rant I am sorry it was a bit jumbled that is one of the things that would be better to do by breaking it apart and doing a video response but I don't have the ability to download it so I couldn't really do that.

Edit:
Ok so it would make sense that within minutes of hitting publish I would come across the article he was talking about:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

It is a good read and shows pretty much how science is always changing. Pretty much what our friend at DI did was a quote mine, yes the Darwinian tree is no longer 100% accurate but neither is the physics we teach to High School or even college age students, newtonian physics isn't perfect but it is a good introduction. Heck by his logic we should teach our kids about unreal numbers when we are first teaching them math instead of first teaching them to add then teaching them that in subtraction you always take the smaller number away from the bigger number then teaching them eventually about negatives etc. Sorry buddy but it is easier to get the basics in there and then slowly build from there as it becomes needed.

Edit 2:
I knew it would only be a matter of time till someone did this so here you go for your entertainment: