"these out-dated industry marketing materials touted as "peer-review" science to the reader"
Conspiracy theory much? You know that every scientific discovery has to go through peer review, right? If the process wouldn't work, all our modern devices wouldn't work. The device you've typed this on included.
You also know what peer review exactly is? It usually means, that you send your paper to a scientific journal and the journal choses someone to review it. And that's the crux of the matter. Any Scientist can try to reproduce any finding they want. If they fail to do so, the scientific journal loses credibility, no scientist would read it. Scientific journals release papers from scientists all over the world. From any researcher team, that submits papers, if those hold up to scrutiny. It is the bread and butter of any one of the well trusted scientific journals to stay, well, well trusted. To claim that peer review doesn't work, would be to claim, that every single scientist on the planet would be in on a conspiracy, to a point where they even defend findings of scientists, that work for rivalling companies. Which would be mind boggeling nonsense.
And you wouldn't have to research wether humans can dissolve meat (you're right, btw, we don't liquefy meat, we dissolve it). You know why? Because we have litterally billions of people on the planet, that eat meat on a daily basis. And there's something at least 99% of all those people have in common. They don't excrete undigested meat. It's that simple. I mean, try to eat something we actually cannot digest, like plastic. If the chunks you swallow are big enough, they will clog up your digestive system. And if they don't, you can watch them come out of you again unchanged. That doesn't happen with meat.
"then who cares if Charles Darwin's book is over 100 years old, right?"
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say, that Darwins book is worthless. It obviously isn't, he is still a very important researcher up to this date. But just like Newton for instance, his findings are outdated. In the sense that they are not false but part of a much bigger picture.
In science old findings are continuously reproduced with new equipment and new knowledge on the subject. Some of the findings are updated, some are replaced, some if not most are just validated yet again. And if you were to study biology, I'm sure you have to learn about Darwin, at least historically speaking.
But that's because you have to understand as a scientist, how we came to the knowledge we have today. For someone, who isn't a scientist or aspiring to become one, contemporary literature is a much better place to start. And I mean start btw. If the field interests you and you want to know more about how it developed, by all means, read Darwin. And don't stop there, read Lamarck too and every other big name in the field. Just get a broad understanding of what we know today, before you risk to memorize outdated data.
"I would criticize Dawkins less if he actually made a contribution to society"
But he did! He released papers. He was a professor. His books are not for biologists, they learn those things in school anyway. They are for non scientists and scientists of other fields. Because many scientific papers are a lot harder to understand without having a profound knowledge of the subject matter to begin with. And how is it not a contribution to society, that thanks to people like Richard Dawkins, you don't have to have a degree in biology in order to understand it rudimentary at least?
"Indeed, when the text book gives you all of the answers, what incentive do you have to actually go out, think for yourself"
To be worth anything in the natural sciences today, you have to have a phd. And what that means is, you have to have released at least one paper with a completely new discovery in it. And it has to withstand peer review. And afterwards, some of those scientists become researchers. They have to discover new things, because it's their job. I mean besides, that they probably want to anyway, they wouldn't have become researchers otherwise.
There's your incentive.
The textbooks give you all the answers, that we discovered up to this point. That includes Darwins findings. To suggest, that we have to read Darwin, to learn about his findings, is quite frankly, nonsense.
Extremist much? :) Judge much? “You have to have a PhD” - Dogmatic much? Assume others’ experience much? Underestimate others much?
“And if you were to study biology...” - I’m glad you have a sense of humor :) upvote for that.
Liquefy = dissolve. Help yourself to a science book or a dictionary for help on this one.
Richard Dawkins is still just as dogmatic as those he criticizes for being dogmatic. And I love calling him out. And I’m glad to see that myself pointing out the truth has shaken you to your core. Enjoy the rest of your day :)
Point Proven: you haven’t bothered to read Origin of Species, and you type away as if you had room to talk about material you haven’t read in the first place. Contradiction much?
Case Closed