Rating: 
Summary: This book almost destroyed my faith . . .
Review: . . . in the Great Oz Evolution, that is. This book should be required reading for every card-carrying evolutionist. Do you (assuming you are a C.C.E.) still believe that those tired old bromides about the peppered moth, human vestigial organs, Darwin's finches, or the Miller-Urey experiment are the best evidences for evolution? Wells, certainly a card-carrying anti-evolutionist, simply presents the unvarnished history of those (and many other) lines of "evidence." Even if you are a believer (in molecules-to-man evolution, that is) you owe it to your own integrity to get the factual low-down these famous evolutionary fables.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent Design - Intelligent Author
Review: A must read for anyone with an inquiring mind. The diverse reactions to this book underscore it's importance.
Rating:
Summary: Shocking Exposè of Evolutionary Myths
Review: After an in-person interview with Jonathan Wells on this book, several things stand out to make this book shockingly significant: 1) The 10 beloved evolutionary icons (popular examples of "evidence" purportedly showing the validity of Darwinian macro-evolution) are all known to be misleading if not flat out fraudulent -- even within the ranks of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian scholars. 2) Wells points out that the continued use of these "icons" in biology text books (and he names titles and publishers - to their shame!) betrays a metaphysical agenda that bears no resemblance to objective science. And lastly, 3) Wells is no raving creationism propagandist. With his double doctorates (Yale and Berkeley), his scholarship is exemplary, and for those who care to know a little more about the authors of the books they read, he has a genuine warmth and friendliness not often associated with "scholarly types." Considering the propagation of the faulty examples of Darwinian evolution listed in the biology texts today, this book is a step toward a badly needed corrective toward a more honest and objective reading of biological science.
Rating:
Summary: Jonathan Fought The Battle of The Darwinists!
Review: Being the Bible person that I am, couldn't resist adapting the author's fight to Joshua and Jerico, and the walls came tumbling down in both.
Wells to this reviewer brings down the walls of "supposed textbook evidence" for evolution. What has for too long been touted and flounted as "fact" and "science" has been exposed by others for many years, but here gathered, refined in some cases and presented so that the average reader can hear the two sides of evidence and make a decision.
This reviewer in an introductory cultural anthropology class in college had one complete textbook which said (as Wells quotes) the fervent evolutionists saying: Science is a fact, and if you don't believe that than you are an idiot.
Sounds parallel to liberal response and strategy in most every realm this days of sharp polarity: politics, theology especially.
When the stakes are high in these three areas: (power and its retention can make for desparate and even deceptive actions) Wells shows that the public especially at formative age in high school, college and even graduate school has been continually fed "standardized misinformation" about the evidence available to show the evolution is a better model for origin of life debates than creation or Intelligent Design, et al.
I am indebted to Nancy Pearcy in her amazing work: "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity" for shocking me with her discovery of these honest scientists such as Wells who have scientifically and systematically took apart the Evolutionist faulty, shoddy and even in some cases deliberately falsified evidence.
This is shocking for our children. Our society should take notice and correct this tragedy post haste.
However, we mustn't make the pendulum mistake of diminishing our respect and desire for good science, whether of the Christian worldview or materialist. God bless honest and forthright scientists, but God forbid the continued, liberal cultural support of this evolutionary false evidence that cannot stand the test of time or scientific investigation as Wells does so wonderfully in this book.
A must read for our times. While at it, suggest one also reads the aforementioned Pearcey book as well as Coulter's "Slander" for this strategy for politics.
Rating: 
Summary: this book is whiny, lazy "science" from a non-scientist
Review: Creationists have been trying for decades to remove evolution from mainstream science curricula. This partly stems from myopic allegiance to ancient religious beliefs, but mostly comes from essentially flawed views of what evolution actually is; regardless, although their approach has become more intelligent, their aim has always been the same. They look to discredit evolution NOT by presenting scientific evidence FOR "intelligent design"; however, they look to invalidate evolution by introducing DOUBT in its solidity. The pseudo-scientific arguments spewed from this "scientist" without a scientific job (the Discovery Institute is a political organization) are flawed. Most unfortunately, those untrained in logic and/or science can find themselves succeptible to the allure of a catchy idea. That is the core problem with this book and the Creationist movement in general: they're looking to invalidate a scientific theory by going around the criticisms of real scientists and instead use sleazy lobbying and grassroots politics in relatively uneducated areas of the country.
Please refer to Alan Gishlick's excellent essay on the book; it is better than any review I have seen here. You will find it at: http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ . In short, scientists do peer-reviewed research to develop cogent, repeatable conclusions...this book is hardly that. Gishlick's eventual conclusion:
"When Alfred Wegener first proposed his theory of continental drift, he was laughed at and ridiculed. What did he do? Did he form a non-profit advocacy group and lobby state school boards and lawmakers to force teaching of "evidence against" geosynclinal theory? Write a book called Icons of Uniformitarianism? Evaluate and grade earth science textbooks and demand that they be rewritten to remove examples of "borderlands"? No. He went back and did more research. He found like-minded colleagues and they produced research. He fought in the peer-reviewed literature. He produced original research, not polemical popular tracts or politics. Eventually his ideas were adopted by the whole of geology -- not through politics but because of their overall explanatory power. If Wells and his colleagues want "intelligent design" to succeed, they need to produce that research. Until they do, evolution remains the reigning paradigm and the "icons" are perfectly acceptable teaching aids."
Rating: 
Summary: Myths Versus Truths
Review: Dr. Wells has written a valuable book for all those who believe in "intelligent design" but don't buy Darwin's theories. The reactions of the Darwinists to this book remind me of how Sigmund Freud reacted to criticism. Religious people attacked Frued relentlessly in his day, thus making him extremely defensive of his work. We now know that many of Freud's claims were bogus.
I am three fourths through "Icons of Evolution," and I find it fascinating and very well researched. Accepting faulty experiments with peppered moths and doctored pictures of embryos does not advance science. It invites laziness to simply accept them because it is convenient to do so.
Readers with open minds will find much of value in "Icons of Evolution."
Rating:
Summary: Fair, accurate, and well-reasoned--up to a point.
Review: I detest creationism. I'm an agnostic. I have a degree in zoology. This is a good book. Jonathan Wells' motives may well be suspect, and the purpose of this book may well be to supply ammunition for creationists who want to attack their local school curricula. According to an article by Wells on a Unification Church website, http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm , "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism." It doesn't matter. This is a good, well-written, cogently argued book. Up until about page 229, I think what it says is accurate and reasonably fair. It is a good example of critical discussion. Well's "icons of evolution" are well-known textbook examples of supposed facts that support the Neodarwinian theory of evolution: industrial melanism, Darwin's finches, etc. I don't think see how you can challenge him here; these are not straw men, these really are the "textbook examples." Wells proceeds to argue that each of these "facts" is misinformation or worse. And I think his critiques are quite justifiable. He also asserts that these "facts" are widely known to be faulty, yet continue to be repeated in textbooks. He implies strongly that the reason for this is that there is an extrascientific agenda at work. Here we get into murkier waters, but, yes, I believe that pressure from religious dogmatists has forced evolutionists into a dogmatism of their own. Scientists have been too willing to circle the wagons and present a united public front against the creationists. I've read a number of articles that attack this book, and I think most of them do not succeed very well. For example, Wells points out, correctly enough, that the textbook photographs of _Biston betularia_ on light and dark-colored tree-trunks are all but fake. What can possibly be said in defense of faked photographs in textbooks? That it doesn't matter, because many other textbook pictures are also fake? That many nature photographs might best be described as posed illustrations of true facts? Or (worst of all) that if something is true it is OK to use inaccurate but memorable pictures to illustrate it? School committee members may fear, perhaps justifiably, that irate citizens are going demand that school biology textbooks be labelled with the "warning labels" he so helpfully provides in Appendix II. And certainly the notion of "warning labels for textbooks" is a politically charged attack. But even the actual text of his "warning labels" is reasonable enough: ("WARNING: Archaeopterix is probably not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors remain highly controversial; other missing links are now being sought;" "WARNING: Darwin's tree of live does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion, and molecular evidence does not support a simple branching-tree pattern.") Perhaps Wells is a dogmatist who is cleverly feigning the spirit of free inquiry in order to make an effective attack. And quite possibly Wells deserves to be attacked _ad hominem_. But I think it is best to speak to the actual words he puts on the page. And I can go with him at least as far as page 229. I say if he's right, he's right-and-up to page 229-I think he IS right, by and large, for the most part.
Rating:
Summary: A well argued case against evolutionist zealots
Review: I do not believe in evolution, but when I started this book I was pretty convinced that 'Icons of Evolution' wasn't going to be a very convincing book for anti evolutionists.
I will admit that my preconceptions of this book sold Jonathan Wells short. Not all of his arguments are extremely useful in debate, but he does make his over arching point (that science textbooks cite misleading and contradictory evidence for evolution as proof that evolution is true) very convincingly.
It is of little surprise that Ken Miller (a college textbook writer) is one of the most vocal critics of this book. Because Wells has definitely given textbook writers a black eye for not correcting the many errors in college and high school texts, even though some of the examples that Wells exposes have been widely known in scientific literature to be misleading or just plain wrong for years.
Don't prejudge this book, Wells arguements are not as "out there" as I was expected, most are reasonable and, as such, very defendable.
Rating:
Summary: Public service. Pattern of massive scientific fraud exposed.
Review: The book exposes a pattern of fraud and evidence misrepresentation designed to portray Darwinian evolution as fact. We aren't talking minor or obscure details here. These are the primary arguments presented to convince people evolution is unquestionable fact. Specifically, it shows ... ... textbook accounts of origin of life (the famous Miller experiment) assume the opposite of what scientists and evidence now indicate was the early Earth environment. ... scientists, including Stephen Gould, have long known drawings showing similarities between fish and human embryos are not only incorrect, but faked. (These same drawings were persuasive in Darwin's thinking when formulating his ideas on evolution). Yet they continue to be included in textbooks. ... the famous Pepper Moth example of natural selection in action was demonstrated with staged/fake photographs, showing moths on tree trunks. Such moths haven't been observed to rest on tree trunks, thus color matching to the trunk doesn't fit the selection theory they are said to prove. More fraud. ... the claimed role of mutations in Darwinian evolution is falsely illustrated with genetically engineered fruit flies that actually show the opposite of what Darwinian theory requires. Other chapters deal with the beak of the finch (wet/dry seasonal variations neglected), archaeopteryx (not the ancestor of birds; shows how cladistics and the desire to link birds to dinosaurs has led to some unbelievably bad science). An appendix looks at biology texbooks published in 1998-1999, showing how they present fraudulent Darwinian science as routine recitation of fact. This book does to the somewhat harder science of biology what "Degenerate Moderns" (Jones) does to the soft sciences of economics, psychology and anthropology. Each chapter really deserves a separate book; the chapters, while sufficient and heavily referenced, are really a starting point for unwinding each sordid tale in what is likely to be gruesome detail. While polls report the majority of Americans say they don't "believe" evolution, evolutionary claims are the primary pillar shaping what people think about life and reality. For example, the idea of humans as animals, with sex the primary purpose of life comes from evolutionary assertion. Take away evolution and you take away "survival of the fittest", racial supremacy logic (eugenics, Nazis, WW II), abortion, moral and cultural relativism, the sexual revolution, etc. The 20th century, in other words. While this book is a stake in the heart of Darwinism, simply showing fraud won't change things quickly. Darwinism is lousy, corrupt science, but it is powerful philosophy. For it's advocates, no amount of fraud and deception is too great. If evolution goes, it re-opens the hated matter of accountability to a higher power. Subordination to a higher power means one could no longer pretend life revolves around human desire. Evolution tried to scientifically justify putting human ego at the center of the universe. Removal from that position will not be meekly accepted due to mere fact.
Rating:
Summary: Icons of Deceitfulness
Review: The central idea of Wells' book is that ten separate "icons of evolution" used in introductory biology textbooks are "misleading or downright false."
Wells' methodology is to cite trustworthy experts in each of the subject fields who allegedly support Wells' claims. The problem is that Wells cited several experts who are still living, and after those experts read Wells' book, they responded by blasting Wells and accusing him of misrepresenting the facts. So if we use Wells' own methodology and rely on what Wells' own experts actually said, then it appears that it is actually Wells' book that is "misleading or downright false."
For example, Wells says Darwin's "tree of life" analogy is inaccurate, because it implies that new forms of life appeared gradually, whereas in reality most animal forms appeared essentially simultaneously in the Cambrian explosion. Wells cites Conway Morris as agreeing that there is a sharp demarcation of life at the start of the Cambrian, but what Conway Morris actually said was that the appearance of a sharp break was "really a human artifact, a construct of our imagination." Obviously, that's completely at odds with Wells' statement, and for someone concerned about accuracy in textbooks, Wells' error is rather embarrassing!
Wells also cites Benton in support of Wells' astonishing claim that the Precambrian fossil record is essentially complete. In reality, Benton was not referring to the Precambrian at all, but to later periods. Wells' citation is "downright false!"
Wells cites Raff in support of Wells' accusation that evos resort to circular reasoning in using homologous structures as evidence of evolution. But Wells' expert responded in a blistering editorial, "The creationist abuse of evo-devo." Wells says expert opinion should be heeded? I agree! Wells' own expert says Wells is dishonest!
Wells cites Richardson -- who had recently exposed Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings -- to support Wells' argument that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings show that embryology provides no support for evolution. Richardson promptly fired back: "We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. . . . . On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan. . . . (reflecting) shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms. . . . Haeckel was overzealous [and] . . . showed many details incorrectly . . . . but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated."
So there you have it from Wells' own expert: Embryology provides strong evidence for evolution, and it is Wells' statements that are "misleading or downright false!"
Regarding Kettlewell's famous studies on peppered moths, Wells screams in rage that peppered moths never rest on tree trunks. Again, Wells' own experts disagree. Wells cites Majerus here, but fails to mention the graphs and figures in Majerus' book that report that peppered moths do indeed rest on tree trunks about 25% of the time; over 60% if trunk/branch junctures are included. How's that for "misleading or downright false!"
Wells also screams bloody murder about Kettlewell's photos being staged, but fails to disclose that there are unstaged photos in other sources, and the unstaged photos are basically identical to Kettlewell's photos. If staged and unstaged photos are essentially identical, then what's the problem? Wells never explains, but it appears that the main thing being "staged" here is Wells' theatrical outrage.
Oh, one more thing. Where did the unstaged photos come from? Why, from Wells' own expert, Majerus!
Wells also engages in blatantly misleading data-mining, presenting maps of isolated "discrepancies" in peppered moth observations, while omitting far more numerous "consistent" observations. According to Wells' own experts, his deception on this point is far worse than anything in Kettlewell's studies!
The "Ultimate Icon" is the reproduction on the book's cover, showing the evolutionary sequence from ape to man. The problem is, there are no textbooks that include this icon. Wells supposedly has his knickers in a twist about all the misleading icons in biology textbooks, but what Wells himself labels the "Ultimate Icon" doesn't actually appear in even a single textbook! Not one! So why did Wells feature it so prominently on the cover of the book??? Why did he call it the "Ultimate Icon"??? Again, the suspicion that Wells is engaging in phony theatrics is overwhelming. What a chump.
There are many, many, many more examples of dishonesty in Wells' book that reviewers like Tamzek and Gishlick have identified, but I think the ones given above are enough to show that every time Wells cites a study or a scientist who allegedly supports him, you can be pretty sure the citation is either false, misleading, out-of-context, out-dated, or incomplete.
Speaking of out-dated, `Icons' itself is out-dated. Science marches on, and some of the textbooks that Wells reviewed have already been re-written, with new evidence and analyses that make the case for evolution even stronger than before. As time goes by, the more evidence that accumulates, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask Wells' own experts!
|
