Jump to content

Icons of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.211.138.198 (talk) at 22:49, 26 November 2007 (→‎Wells' Icons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth
AuthorJonathan Wells
PublisherRegnery Publishing
Publication date
January 2002
Media typePaperback
Pages338
ISBNISBN 0895262002 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.[1] 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.[2]

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.

creation is right

Cover picture

The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

Reception by creationists

Dean Kenyon, a creationist and co-author of the controversial textbook Of Pandas and People, said that Wells "has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades."[3] Paul Chien, who translated Icons into Chinese,[4] 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."[5] Both Chien and Kenyon are fellows of the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design and skepticism of evolution, with Wells.

Reception by the scientific community

The members of the scientific community that have reviewed Icons of Evolution have rejected his claims and conclusions. Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.

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" [6].

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."[7]

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".[1]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci devoted section of his Denying Evolution work to refute each point presented in Wells' Icons of Evolution.[8] Amongst the refutations Pigliucci noted several mistakes Wells made and outlined how Wells' oversimplified some issues to the detriment of the subject.

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"[9].

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."[10]

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.[11] 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."[12]

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."[13] The documentary Flock of Dodos challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that that Haeckel’s Embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks.[14] 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."[15] 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."[16]

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,[17][18] and PZ Myers.[19] That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church[20] and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"[21] 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.[22][23][24][25][26] The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion."[27]

These specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design[28] as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience[29].

Icons of Evolution video

In 2002, a video titled Icons Of Evolution and directed by Bryan Boorujy was released by Discovery Institute (ASIN 0972043314).[citation needed] In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book. The video also covers the story of Roger DeHart, one of the Discovery Institute's media campaigns claiming discrimination.[30]

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.


References

  1. ^ a b Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education
  2. ^ Coyne, Jerry (410, (2001) 745-46). "Creationism by Stealth". Nature. Retrieved 2006-12-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ What people are saying about Icons of Evolution Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.
  4. ^ Paul Chien, Discovery Institute
  5. ^ What people are saying about Icons of Evolution, official website
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Obfuscation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Creationism by Stealth Jerry Coyne. Answers In Science, Tufts University.
  8. ^ Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 252-264
  9. ^ Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002
  10. ^ Wells and Haeckel's Embryos PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), February 15, 2007.
  11. ^ Response to Oral Testimony Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
  12. ^ Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.
  13. ^ [1]
  14. ^ Flock of Dodos Randy Olson.
  15. ^ It burns… it burns!! Brian Switek. Laelaps, February 7 2007.
  16. ^ [2]
  17. ^ Letter to Judith P. Fowler Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science
  18. ^ Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003.
  19. ^ Textbooks and Haeckel again PZ Myers. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.
  20. ^ The new Monkey Trial Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.
  21. ^ Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family
  22. ^ Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.
  23. ^ Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.
  24. ^ Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.
  25. ^ PZ Myers is such a LIAR! PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.
  26. ^ Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News, Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007.
  27. ^ The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ 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
  30. ^ Not the Whole Truth, Roger Downey, Seattle Weekly, May 15, 2002

Supporting 'Icons of Evolution'

Critical of 'Icons of Evolution'

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icons_of_Evolution&oldid=174001272"