Revision as of 17:42, 6 February 2007 edit151.151.21.99 (talk) Reverting← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:26, 6 February 2007 edit undoExucmember (talk | contribs)3,003 edits restoring my 17 edits that were reverted by 151.151.21.99 with no explanationNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Unbalanced}} | |||
{{Infobox_Book | {{Infobox_Book | ||
| name = Icons of Evolution | | name = Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong | ||
| image = ] | | image = ] | ||
| author = ] | | author = ] | ||
| cover_artist = | | cover_artist = | ||
| publisher = ] | | publisher = ] | ||
Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?''' is a ] by |
'''''Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong''''' is a ] by ], ] advocate and fellow of the ]. | ||
In the book Wells argues that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked" <ref>"In ''Icons'' I pointed out that the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked. I argued that a theory that systematically distorts the evidence is not good empirical science--perhaps not even science at all." </ref> and that "many of the major images used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution and the facts do not fit the evidence."<ref>In 2002 I published a book "Icons of Evolution", in which I showed many of the major images used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution and the facts do not fit the evidence. </ref> Wells uses 10 case studies to illustrate his contention of flaws in the way evolution is taught. | |||
In it, Wells attempts to overthrow the ] of ] by attacking how it is taught contending that the 10 case studies used to illustrate and teach evolution are flawed. Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled and its conclusions as to the evidentiary status of the ], which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm | title=Creationism by Stealth |publisher=] | date= 410, (2001) 745-46 | first=Jerry | last=Coyne | accessdate = 2006-12-24}}</ref> | |||
Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions. | Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled and its conclusions as to the evidentiary status of the ], which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm | title=Creationism by Stealth |publisher=] | date= 410, (2001) 745-46 | first=Jerry | last=Coyne | accessdate = 2006-12-24}}</ref> Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions. | ||
== Wells' Icons == | == Wells' Icons == | ||
Wells' ten icons are: | Wells' ten icons are: | ||
# ] |
# ]; | ||
# Darwin's ] | # Darwin's ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; , | ||
# Four-winged ] | # Four-winged ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
# ] | # ]; | ||
===Case study: Peppered Moths=== | |||
⚫ | ] of ] reviewed Wells' work in the article '''', and Wells responded with an '''' (2002). Furthermore, Wells summarized his "icons" in '''' (A reprint from the '']'' December 2000/January 2001). A detailed critiques can be found '''' () by ] of the ]. | ||
Wells wrote: | |||
*Before biologists discovered that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, many experiments were conducted by pinning or gluing dead moths to tree trunks. This practice should have been abandoned, however, once biologists knew that it fails to test the camouflage-predation theory under natural conditions. In Icons of Evolution, I criticized textbooks that continue to use staged photos of moths on tree trunks to illustrate natural selection--though I stopped short of calling them “fraudulent.” | |||
Jerry Coyne wrote: | |||
*“From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong. ... alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks.” | |||
==Reception by the scientific community== | ==Reception by the scientific community== | ||
Line 38: | Line 46: | ||
The members of the scientific community that reviewed ''Icons of Evolution'' have roundly rejected his claims and conclusions. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely ] and misleading readers. | The members of the scientific community that reviewed ''Icons of Evolution'' have roundly rejected his claims and conclusions. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely ] and misleading readers. | ||
⚫ | ] of ] reviewed Wells' work in the article '''', and Wells responded with an '''' (2002). Furthermore, Wells summarized his "icons" in '''' (A reprint from the '']'' December 2000/January 2001). A detailed critiques can be found '''' () by ] of the ]. | ||
Nick Matzke reviewed the work in an article titled "Icon of Obfuscation," and critiqued the book chapter by chapter. Matzke concluded, "''Icons of Evolution'' makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship", and that "''Icons'' contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the ] tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and 'argumentative sleight-of-hand', the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing" <ref> by Nick Matzke. ] Archive</ref>. | |||
Concerning the four-winged fruit flies (Chapter 8), Dave Wisker wrote, "The general reader is done a great disservice by this chapter in ''Icons of Evolution''. Jonathan Wells does not sufficiently address the biographical or scientific literature on ] to enable the reader to make an informed decision regarding his argument. He writes, with exquisite irony, 'It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin's theory'. Since, as we have seen, Wells avoids most of it regarding Darwin's Finches, one wonders how much evidence there is to support his book"<ref> Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002</ref>. | Concerning the four-winged fruit flies (Chapter 8), Dave Wisker wrote, "The general reader is done a great disservice by this chapter in ''Icons of Evolution''. Jonathan Wells does not sufficiently address the biographical or scientific literature on ] to enable the reader to make an informed decision regarding his argument. He writes, with exquisite irony, 'It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin's theory'. Since, as we have seen, Wells avoids most of it regarding Darwin's Finches, one wonders how much evidence there is to support his book"<ref> Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002</ref>. | ||
Line 50: | Line 58: | ||
The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, a pro-science organization . | The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, a pro-science organization . | ||
Wells' statement describing his studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"<ref> Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family</ref> are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific ] and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.<ref> John S. Wilkins. ] March 30, 2004.</ref><ref> ], ], January 24, 2007.</ref><ref> ], ], January 25, 2007.</ref><ref> ], ], November 3, 2006.</ref><ref> Tara C. Smith. Aetiology, January 31, 2007.</ref> | |||
== Icons of Evolution video == | == Icons of Evolution video == |
Revision as of 19:26, 6 February 2007
This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
Author | Jonathan Wells |
---|---|
Publisher | Regnery Publishing |
Publication date | January 2002 |
Media type | Paperback |
Pages | 338 |
ISBN | ISBN 0895262002 and ISBN 978-0895262004 Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character |
Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong is a controversial book by Jonathan Wells, Intelligent Design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute.
In the book Wells argues that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked" and that "many of the major images used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution and the facts do not fit the evidence." Wells uses 10 case studies to illustrate his contention of flaws in the way evolution is taught.
Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled and its conclusions as to the evidentiary status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology. Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions.
Wells' Icons
Wells' ten icons are:
- Miller-Urey experiment; critique of Wells
- Darwin's tree of life; critique of Wells
- Homology in vertebrate limbs; critique of Wells
- Haeckel's embryos; critique of Wells
- Archaeopteryx; critique of Wells
- Peppered moth; critique of Wells
- Darwin's finches; critique of Wells, Response of Wells
- Four-winged fruit flies; critique of Wells
- Fossil horses; critique of Wells
- Hominid evolution; critique of Wells
Case study: Peppered Moths
Wells wrote:
- Before biologists discovered that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, many experiments were conducted by pinning or gluing dead moths to tree trunks. This practice should have been abandoned, however, once biologists knew that it fails to test the camouflage-predation theory under natural conditions. In Icons of Evolution, I criticized textbooks that continue to use staged photos of moths on tree trunks to illustrate natural selection--though I stopped short of calling them “fraudulent.”
Jerry Coyne wrote:
- “From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong. ... alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks.” (Jerry Coyne, “Not black and white,” a review of Michael Majerus’s Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature 396 (1998): 35-36.)
Reception by the scientific community
The members of the scientific community that reviewed Icons of Evolution have roundly rejected his claims and conclusions. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.
Nick Matzke of talk.origins reviewed Wells' work in the article Icon of Obfuscation, and Wells responded with an A Response to Published Reviews (2002). Furthermore, Wells summarized his "icons" in Survival of the Fakest (A reprint from the American Spectator December 2000/January 2001). A detailed critiques can be found Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong (PDF here) by Alan D. Gishlick of the National Center for Science Education.
Concerning the four-winged fruit flies (Chapter 8), Dave Wisker wrote, "The general reader is done a great disservice by this chapter in Icons of Evolution. Jonathan Wells does not sufficiently address the biographical or scientific literature on Darwin's Finches to enable the reader to make an informed decision regarding his argument. He writes, with exquisite irony, 'It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin's theory'. Since, as we have seen, Wells avoids most of it regarding Darwin's Finches, one wonders how much evidence there is to support his book".
Of the motive of Wells' book Alan D. Gishlick wrote: "It is clear from Wells's treatment of the "icons" and his grading scheme that his interest is not to improve the teaching of evolution, but rather to teach anti-evolutionism. Under Wells's scheme, teachers would be hostile to evolution as part of biology instruction. Wells and his allies hope that this would open the door to alternatives to evolution (such as "intelligent design") without actually having to support them with science", and "In conclusion, the scholarship of Icons is substandard and the conclusions of the book are unsupported. In fact, despite his touted scientific credentials, Wells doesn't produce a single piece of original research to support his position. Instead, Wells parasitizes on other scientists' legitimate work".
These specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience.
In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci devoted section of his Denying Evolution work to refute each point presented in Wells' Icons of Evolution. Amongst the refutations Pigliucci noted several mistakes Wells made and outlined how Wells' oversimplified some issues to the detriment of the subject.
The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, a pro-science organization .
Wells' statement describing his studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism" are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.
Icons of Evolution video
In 2002, a 75-minute video titled Icons Of Evolution and directed by Bryan Boorujy was released by Discovery Institute (ASIN 0972043314). In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book.
The video was mentioned in testimony during Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by plaintiff Bryan Rehm. Rehm testified that Alan Bonsell, then-chairman of the board's curriculum committee, asked them to watch "Icons of Evolution" after teachers expressed concern that Bonsell did not believe in evolution and wished to see classroom discussions of evolution balanced "fifty-fifty" with creationism.
Editions
- Icons of Evolution. Regnery Publishing, Inc.; 1st Pbk edition (January 2002) ISBN 978-0895262004
- Icons of Evolution. Regnery Publishing, Inc.; 1st Pbk edition (January 2002) ISBN 0895262002
- Icons of Evolution. (Video) (2002) ASIN 0972043314
References
- "In Icons I pointed out that the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked. I argued that a theory that systematically distorts the evidence is not good empirical science--perhaps not even science at all."
- In 2002 I published a book "Icons of Evolution", in which I showed many of the major images used in biology textbooks as evidence for evolution and the facts do not fit the evidence.
- Coyne, Jerry (410, (2001) 745-46). "Creationism by Stealth". Nature. Retrieved 2006-12-24.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002
- Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education
- See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
- National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science
- Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 252-264
- Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family
- Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.
- Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.
- Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.
- PZ Myers is such a LIAR! PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.
- Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News Tara C. Smith. Aetiology, January 31, 2007.
External links
Pro-Wells
Critical of Icons
- Icons of Evolution FAQs from Talk.Origins
- Icon of Obfuscation by Nick Matzke of talk.origins
- Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong (PDF here) by Alan D. Gishlick from National Center for Science Education
- No Icons of Evolution: A Review of by evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci
- A reasonably short guide to Wells' "icons" of evolution, and why they are not what he claims by Massimo Pigliucci
- The Fact of Evolution: Implications for Science Education
- Saving Us From Darwin by Frederick C Crews
- Patience and Absurdity: How to Deal with Intelligent Design Creationism by Paul R Gross
- Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm by Eugenie Scott
- Selection of critical reviews
- Icons of Evolution Review by Dave Ussery
- NMSR Debates Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute
- Creationism and Intelligent Design by Robert Pennock
Peppered moth | |
---|---|
Biology | |
Writers and researchers | |
Works | |
Creative works |