I'm begging for more interdisciplinary interaction between academics trying to teach material outside their discipline. Every once in a while, I run across classes that try to inject a little biology into their history, and it can be embarrassingly bad (not always, of course—historians of science can be competent in understanding their source material!) As an example, Mona Albano sent me a link to the syllabus for an introductory history course taught by a Dr Nicassio at Lafayette University. I don't know whether Dr Nicassio gives much thought to creationism at all, but the section of her lecture notes that describes scientism has a major flaw: it presents creationist objections to evolution a bit too seriously.

Objections to Darwin's theory:

1. Although the vast majority of biologists still consider evolution to be a fact, scientists from other fields such as Information Theory and Physics have begun to question some of its assumptions.
2. Atheist Fred Hoyle (astronomer) has said that the likelihood of life developing by a random process is on the same order of probability as the likelihood that a typhoon could blow through a junkyard and construct a 707 jet aircraft. (He thinks spacemen did it.)
3. Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest would require unimaginably vast spans of time if were possible at all: almost all mutations are fatal, and of those that are not, most have little or no survival value.
4. Organisms are much more complex than Darwin realized. Many organs, such as they eye, have no survival value at all until they are complete.
5. Neo-Darwinists, which retaining the idea of evolution, have greatly modified Darwin's original theory.
6. Some, who accept micro-evolution (minor changes within a species), continue to doubt macro-evolution (major changes from one species to another)
7. While most religious groups have agreed that evolution itself does not contradict the idea of creation (it mere alters the way in which it was accomplished), others reject it on the grounds that it contradicts the Bible, and makes man an accidental part of nature rather than a special creature.

These are actual objections that creationists make, so it's valid to list them as a historical account. However, it pains me to see them just left there as if they actually had some credibility, and that students should take them seriously. They're all wrong. They're misleading. They're dishonest. I sure hope that in her lectures Dr Nicassio spells that out and explains that these are all fallacious arguments.

1. I haven't seen any credible argument against evolution from Information Theory or Physics. I have seen creationists spin out error-filled interpretations of information theory, and make some real howlers over thermodynamics, but there aren't any serious objections. How could there be? Evolution occurred, the genetic processes have been documented…anyone who claims otherwise is in the position of the engineer who claimed bumblebees can't fly.
2. Hoyle said that the likelihood of life developing by a random process is on the same order of probability as the likelihood that a typhoon could blow through a junkyard and construct a 707 jet aircraft—he's right! Of course, this says nothing against evolution, because evolution is not a random process.
3. Most mutations are not fatal. This one is trivially false; we know the mutation rate, and we know that essentially everyone is born carrying multiple mutations…and we're not all dead.
4. Darwin himself addressed the issue of the evolution of complex organs such as the eye—that's one of the most common examples of quote-mining. We have many examples of intermediate grades of eye formation, and their utility is clear.
5. You know, if someone is going to teach anything about the history of science, they ought to appreciate the fact that one of the strengths of science is that ideas change as new information becomes available. Objecting to evolution because it was able to accommodate the ideas of genetics in the neo-Darwinian synthesis is just backwards—would it have been a stronger theory if it rejected accurate rules of inheritance?
6. That "some doubt" a component of the theory like macroevolution is not a credible objection. "Some doubt" that the Apollo program put men on the moon; "some doubt" is not a magic mantra to give a claim any power.
7. Similarly, that fundamentalists reject evolution because it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible is true, but that doesn't make them right. That they disbelieve it because of their personal dogma is not an objection we should take seriously.

I'm sure there are good biologists at Lafayette who would be happy to take a quick look at her discussion of evolution and nicely explain any errors. I'm sending her a friendly email myself, to bring these points to her attention.