This is great, from Concerned Women for America:

1. Origin of Life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth—when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor—thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry—a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

4. Vertebrate Embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry—even though biologists have known vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds—even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

6. Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection—when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

7. Darwin’s Finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection—even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no evolution remained?

8. Mutant Fruit Flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution—even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

9. Human Origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident—when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

10. Evolution a Fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact—even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Source: Web site for Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2000). Dr. Wells is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a member of several scientific associations, and has been published widely in academic journals.