| Revision as of 16:16, 24 June 2007 edit196.38.218.24 (talk) →Reception by the scientific community← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:23, 24 June 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits Revert to previous version by FeloniousMonk. POV edits by anonymous editor are unacceptableNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| ==Reception by the scientific community== | ==Reception by the scientific community== | ||
| The members of the scientific community that reviewed ''Icons of Evolution'' have rejected his claims and conclusions. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely ] and misleading readers. | |||
| ] reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on Haeckel's Embryos writes "what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of 'our best evidence for Darwin's theory.' ... Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association."<ref> ]. ], February 15, 2007.</ref> | ] reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on Haeckel's Embryos writes "what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of 'our best evidence for Darwin's theory.' ... Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association."<ref> ]. ], February 15, 2007.</ref> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication.<ref> Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.</ref> This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."<ref>, July 9, 2003.</ref> This has led to the question being asked, "if the problems identified by Dr. Wells are nonexistent like Myers and others claim, why are some textbook writers already making mandated changes?" | Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication.<ref> Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.</ref> This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."<ref>, July 9, 2003.</ref> This has led to the question being asked, "if the problems identified by Dr. Wells are nonexistent like Myers and others claim, why are some textbook writers already making mandated changes?" | ||
| According to emeritus professor of |
According to emeritus professor of biophysics, San Francisco State University, ], who is a creationist and author of the upcoming ] the upcoming sequal to ], Wells "has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades."<ref> Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.</ref> Professor of biology ], University of San Francisco, writes: "Wells has done a great public service" by writing his book, adding that the book’s "extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism… with extensive research notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist."{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Both Chien and Kenyon are fellows of the ] with Wells. | ||
| ⚫ | ] 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 name = Obfuscation/>. | ||
| Professor of biology Paul Chien, University of San Francisco, states: "Wells has done a great public service" by writing his book, adding that the book’s "extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism in the diverse fields of Biology, with extensive research notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist."<ref name="Icons Reviews"> | |||
| ⚫ | 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 name = Obfuscation/>. | ||
| ] wrote of ''Icons'' "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."<ref> ]. Answers In Science, ].</ref> | ] wrote of ''Icons'' "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."<ref> ]. Answers In Science, ].</ref> | ||
Revision as of 16:23, 24 June 2007
 | |
| 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 is a controversial book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, and a 2002 video about the book.
In it, Wells attempted to overthrow the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. Wells contended 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 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
In the book, Wells focused on 10 examples that he said commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "icons". He evaluated how seven of these "icons" are treated in 10 "widely used" high school and undergraduate textbooks. Although Wells established a "grading scale" for the textbooks, Alan Gishlick reported that the grading scale was poorly constructed and inconsistently used.
Wells' ten "icons" were:
The last three "icons" - four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution - were discussed in the book, but Wells did not evaluate their coverage in textbooks. Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in any of the textbooks.
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.
Miller-Urey experiment
The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated what were believed to be the conditions on the early Earth and tested the Oparin-Haldane model for chemical evolution. In Icons of Evolution Wells argued that since the atmospheric composition used in the experiment is now known to be incorrect, it should not be used in textbooks. Wells said that current ideas about the atmospheric composition of the early earth makes this type of chemical synthesis impossible due to the presence of "significant" amounts of oxygen. Matzke contends that Wells mischaracterises pre-biotic levels of oxygen; although current estimates of the oxygen content are higher than those used in the experiment, they are still far more reducing than Wells suggests Gishlick discussed fourteen other Miller-Urey type experiments which were able to synthesise amino acids under a variety of conditions, including ones that were done under conditions like those currently believed to have been present in at the time when life is thought to have originated
Wells gave four textbooks a D grade, and the other six Fs. Gishlick contended that Wells criteria "stack the deck against , ensuring failure. Wells grading criteria give a C or worse to any textbook that has a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus unless the figure caption "explicitly that the experiment was irrelevant Thus, even the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, would only receive a C.
Darwin's tree of life
Wells discussed this use of phylogenetic trees in biology textbooks. He stated that textbooks do not adequately address the "Cambrian Explosion" and the emergence of "top-down" patterns of emergence of major phyla. He said that disagreements between morphological and molecular phylogenies disprove common ancestry and that textbooks should treat universal common descent as an unproven theory. Although Wells presented the Cambrian Explosion as happening too quickly for the diversity to have been generated through "Darwinian evolution", Gishlick pointed out that the Cambrian fauna developed over 60 million years. In addition, the emergence of major phyla does not mean that they originated during that time period, but rather that they developed the characteristic features that allow them to be classified into existing phyla. In addition since phylogenies summaries data, they are not presented as "evidence of evolution", but rather as summaries.
Wells gave two textbooks Ds and the other eight Fs. Gishlick pointed out that Wells did not use the grading system consistently, criticising books for failing to discuss the Cambrian Explosion if they do so without calling it an explosion
Reception by the scientific community
The members of the scientific community that reviewed Icons of Evolution have rejected his claims and conclusions. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.
PZ Myers reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on Haeckel's Embryos writes "what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of 'our best evidence for Darwin's theory.' ... Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association."
Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication. This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors." This has led to the question being asked, "if the problems identified by Dr. Wells are nonexistent like Myers and others claim, why are some textbook writers already making mandated changes?"
According to emeritus professor of biophysics, San Francisco State University, Dean Kenyon, who is a creationist and author of the upcoming The Design of Life the upcoming sequal to Of Pandas and People, Wells "has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades." Professor of biology Paul Chien, University of San Francisco, writes: "Wells has done a great public service" by writing his book, adding that the book’s "extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism… with extensive research notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist." Both Chien and Kenyon are fellows of the Discovery Institute with Wells.
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 pseudoscientific 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" .
Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."
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.
To Wells' assertion in Icons that Haeckel's embryos and recapitulation theory appearing in biology textbooks is evidence of flaws in the teaching of evolution, Myers said "I'd say Jonathan Wells' claim is pretty much dead. Haeckel's work is not one of the pillars upon which evolution is built, and biologists have been saying so for at least 85 years (and more like over a century). Next time one of those clowns tries to haunt modern biology with the ghost of Ernst Haeckel, just look 'em in the eye and tell them they're full of crap." The documentary Flock of Dodos challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that that Haeckel’s Embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks. One critic of Wells said "If one reads Wells' criterion for his bogus A-F grading scale for the textbooks in Icons, it quickly becomes apparent that even publishing illustrations that resemble Haeckel's to illustrate his folly will garner the book a D, the only difference between a D and an F in Wells' mind being a 'D' grade book selecting a few embryos rather than publishing the full swath Haeckel originally doctored." PZ Myers says of Wells's claim about the use of Haeckel drawings in modern textbooks "They repeat the claim that Haeckel's embryos and all that silly recapitulation theory are still endemic in biology textbooks. It's not true, no matter how much they whine about it. I've gone over a number of these textbooks, and what you typically find at worst is a figure of the Haeckel diagrams for historical interest with an explanation that rejects recapitulation theory; more often what you find are photos or independently redrawn illustrations of the embryos."
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, and PZ Myers. That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and a statement describing those 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. The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion".
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
- ^ Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education
- Coyne, Jerry (410, (2001) 745-46). "Creationism by Stealth". Nature. Retrieved 2006-12-24.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Icon of Obfuscation Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong by Nick Matzke. Talk.Origins Archive
- Wells and Haeckel's Embryos PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), February 15, 2007.
- Response to Oral Testimony Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
- Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.
- What people are saying about Icons of Evolution Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.
- Creationism by Stealth Jerry Coyne. Answers In Science, Tufts University.
- Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002
- 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 over 700 scientists, 176 of whom hold positions related to biology; and it represents less than 0.6% of scientists in the US, and significantly less if all scientists in the world are included. 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
- Flock of Dodos Randy Olson.
- It burns… it burns!! Brian Switek. Laelaps, February 7 2007.
- Letter to Judith P. Fowler Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science
- Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003.
- Textbooks and Haeckel again PZ Myers. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.
- The new Monkey Trial Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.
- 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.
- The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute.
External links
Supporting 'Icons of Evolution'
- Icons of Evolution – Official website
- Survival of the Fakest Article from the Discovery Institute
- The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute
- Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: Wells' Response to Published Reviews
- The Words of the Wells Family
Critical of 'Icons of Evolution'
- 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 | |