Rating: 
Summary: To see the book for what it is...
Review: There are plenty of other books written recently that directly challenge evolutionary theory. In my view, the importance of this book isn't to prove evolution is false, but to reveal the zealous propagation of the so-called "facts" of evolution. That many textbooks today that still use these eroneous "icons" to demonstrate the "facts" of evolution is exactly what the author claims: misleading. Students have been taught to be uncritical of evolution from textbooks that use these misrepresentations.A better approach, though perhaps an unpopular compromise in the view of evolutionists is the "Teach the Controversy" proposal recently adopted by the State Board of Education of Ohio. Interestingly, National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts has recently and fervently opposed "Teach the Controversy". And in Wells' book, he quotes the Academy's booklet on science teaching: "This process of public scrutiny... is an essential part of science. It works to eliminate individual bias and subjectivity, because others must also be able to determine whether a proposed explanation is consistent with the available evidence." One might wonder why all the fuss over adoption of critical evalutation of evolutionary theory if indeed there is no evidence against it? Maybe they are a bit worried that recent polls have shown that the public is overwhelmingly open to "Teaching the Controversy"? Another example is the Ohio ACLU, which has launched an investigation and threatened a lawsuit over "Teach the Controversy" (see: http://www.acluohio.org). If one steps back from the details of the debate, perhaps it really is plain to see that many evolutionists are not even open to critical analysis of their "theory". Note, then, the long history of misleading "icons" that Wells documents in the book. When these errors were originally uncovered (which was long before this book was written), were the textbooks changed to correct them? Or were they silently ignored and left uncorrected in order to stymie criticism of supposed "fact"? In the introduction of the book, Wells acknowledges that "In several cases, they [contributors to his research] chose anonymity because their careers might suffer at the hands of people who strongly disagree with the conclusions of this book." This remark is highly believable when you consider the responses that have been written to this book including reviews here at Amazon and in the scientific community as well.
Rating:
Summary: To see the book for what it is...
Review: There are plenty of other books written recently that directly challenge evolutionary theory. In my view, the importance of this book isn't to prove evolution is false, but to reveal the zealous propagation of the so-called "facts" of evolution. That many textbooks today that still use these eroneous "icons" to demonstrate the "facts" of evolution is exactly what the author claims: misleading. Students have been taught to be uncritical of evolution from textbooks that use these misrepresentations. A better approach, though perhaps an unpopular compromise in the view of evolutionists is the "Teach the Controversy" proposal recently adopted by the State Board of Education of Ohio. Interestingly, National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts has recently and fervently opposed "Teach the Controversy". And in Wells' book, he quotes the Academy's booklet on science teaching: "This process of public scrutiny... is an essential part of science. It works to eliminate individual bias and subjectivity, because others must also be able to determine whether a proposed explanation is consistent with the available evidence." One might wonder why all the fuss over adoption of critical evalutation of evolutionary theory if indeed there is no evidence against it? Maybe they are a bit worried that recent polls have shown that the public is overwhelmingly open to "Teaching the Controversy"? Another example is the Ohio ACLU, which has launched an investigation and threatened a lawsuit over "Teach the Controversy" (see: http://www.acluohio.org). If one steps back from the details of the debate, perhaps it really is plain to see that many evolutionists are not even open to critical analysis of their "theory". Note, then, the long history of misleading "icons" that Wells documents in the book. When these errors were originally uncovered (which was long before this book was written), were the textbooks changed to correct them? Or were they silently ignored and left uncorrected in order to stymie criticism of supposed "fact"? In the introduction of the book, Wells acknowledges that "In several cases, they [contributors to his research] chose anonymity because their careers might suffer at the hands of people who strongly disagree with the conclusions of this book." This remark is highly believable when you consider the responses that have been written to this book including reviews here at Amazon and in the scientific community as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Performs a Community Service
Review: This book does a good job of demonstrating how most of the more famous examples of macro-evolution provided to students over the last century have been largely debunked. The author does not take a side in the debate, but simply advocates that the theory of evolution be taught both honestly and critically.
As one who came up in the school system 25 years ago, having being taught that evolution was confirmed by several of the "icons" that were known to be false at the time, I can say that Darwinists do themselves no favors by playing fast and loose with the facts. The old fallback of compensating for weak evidence with intimidation, while automatically labeling any freethinker on the subject a "creationist" is wearing thin as well.
I wish that issue were not so polarizing, because it would make for interesting debate in the classroom and, perhaps, attract more young minds to science. I salute Jonathon Wells for writing an excellent book and hope that he and other open minds are successful in their quest for dialogue.
Rating: 
Summary: Garbage!
Review: This book's arguments are completely dishonest. It is based on a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution that is horribly tainted by blatantly unwarranted faith in mythical creation. Evolution is upheld by EVIDENCE, which is something creationism does not have. As with ALL scientific theories there can be disagreements and discussion and changes as evidence, technology and science themselves evolve. Even if some grand discovery somehow proved evolution to be incorrect it does not mean that creationism would become true by default. Creationism is not based on any kind of science. It is the distortion of truth to make it fit within the bounds of biblical myth. It is very unfortunate that christians who claim to uphold the truth are so willing to ignore facts and fabricate their own form of "science" in order to propogate lies. The bible is NOT a science book. It is not even a history book. It is a book of myths. Man made fairy tales. The supporters of creationism wish to return us to the Dark Ages where all facts are derived from the bible and all who disagree are tortured and burned to death by the church. It is very sad that more christians do not see that they are self decieved.
Rating:
Summary: An intriguing book that deserves a fair hearing...
Review: Wells has written a fascinating book about how biology textbooks use outdated evidence for evolution that modern evolutionary biologists no longer accept. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wells' overall point, his book is carefully argued and thoroughly documented by references to the primary scientific literature, and it deserves a serious look by anyone interested in contemporary debates over evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, many of the published criticisms of Wells' book seem to rely on ad hominem attacks or straw-man arguments. Some of the reviewers don't even seem to have read the book. For example, one reviewer asserts that according to Wells peppered moths "never" rest on tree trunks. But Wells does NOT make this claim in the book (and he doesn't use the word "never"). Wells' claim is only that such moths RARELY rest on tree trunks, a conclusion that he amply supports from the relevant scientific literature. This more nuanced claim still undermines the standard textbook use of the peppered moth story. By the way, Wells' critique of the peppered moth story is fully corroborated in Judith Hooper's new book, Of Moths and Men, which goes into great detail about problems with the original moth experiments. It is interesting to note that after Wells' book came out, new editions of certain biology textbooks removed both the peppered moth story and Haeckel's fudged embryo drawings. Don't allow Wells' critics to poison the well by misstating Wells' arguments. Read the book for yourself and make up your own mind.
| 
