What do you think?
Rate this book
أيقونات التطور علم أم خرافة ؟
"
Demonstrates with stunning clarity that the textbook examles Darwinists themselves chose as the pillars of their theory are false or misleading. What does this imply about their scientific standards? Why should anyone now belive any of their other examples?
" - Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Prof. of Biochemistry, Lehigh University
" Brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades, in spite of contrary evidence. " - Dean H. Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Franciso State University
" Brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades, in spite of contrary evidence. " - Dean H. Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Franciso State University
278 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
65 people are currently reading
1,384 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Wells
30books60followersJohn Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells was an American biologist, theologian, and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of its founder Sun Myung Moon and his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
February 6, 2017
Abandoning this about halfway through. It seems I can't read any of these purportedly scientific books 'refuting' evolution without getting angry at tricks used to sell half-truths.
The argument is that there is no convincing evidence for evolution (there is - though fragmented); the origin of life on earth is disputed (there are many theories - but not a single one posits anything other than a natural process); the "Cambrian Explosion" disproves "Darwin's Tree of Life" (it doesn't - it only refines it); Homology as explanation of evolution is circular reasoning (it isn't - it is one of the evidences among many in support of evolution); Haeckel's embryonic drawings are fraudulent, and Darwin knowingly used these "fake" drawings in support of his theory, so his theory is fake...
...no need to read further.
Science does not deal in certainties, but in theories to fit facts as they appear. So a scientific "fact" means something which is most strongly supported by evidence available at that time. It does not mean that it will not be overturned the moment evidence becomes available to the contrary. All scientific theories are falsifiable - including evolution.
The whole tone of this book is to imply that the scientific "establishment" is pushing a "myth" down the throat of unsuspecting children. The reason? Well, the author doesn't say it, but it's evident - to make them atheists and liberals, so that they won't vote for the God-fearing Christians. America is being taken away from you, parents...
The danger of this book is that the author (mis?)quotes scientists in the field of paleontology and evolutionary biology to give his book a veneer of veracity - and he blows up scientific disagreements to "controversies". It is quite possible that a layman may be taken in.
For all those who read this book, it is my humble suggestion to have a look at the Wikipedia page on this book. I am reproducing the relevant portion.
Enough said.
The argument is that there is no convincing evidence for evolution (there is - though fragmented); the origin of life on earth is disputed (there are many theories - but not a single one posits anything other than a natural process); the "Cambrian Explosion" disproves "Darwin's Tree of Life" (it doesn't - it only refines it); Homology as explanation of evolution is circular reasoning (it isn't - it is one of the evidences among many in support of evolution); Haeckel's embryonic drawings are fraudulent, and Darwin knowingly used these "fake" drawings in support of his theory, so his theory is fake...
...no need to read further.
Science does not deal in certainties, but in theories to fit facts as they appear. So a scientific "fact" means something which is most strongly supported by evidence available at that time. It does not mean that it will not be overturned the moment evidence becomes available to the contrary. All scientific theories are falsifiable - including evolution.
The whole tone of this book is to imply that the scientific "establishment" is pushing a "myth" down the throat of unsuspecting children. The reason? Well, the author doesn't say it, but it's evident - to make them atheists and liberals, so that they won't vote for the God-fearing Christians. America is being taken away from you, parents...
The danger of this book is that the author (mis?)quotes scientists in the field of paleontology and evolutionary biology to give his book a veneer of veracity - and he blows up scientific disagreements to "controversies". It is quite possible that a layman may be taken in.
For all those who read this book, it is my humble suggestion to have a look at the Wikipedia page on this book. I am reproducing the relevant portion.
Reception by the scientific community and criticism[edit]
The members of the scientific community who have reviewed Icons of Evolution have rejected his claims and conclusions.[11] Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.[3] This includes biologist Bruce Grant, who said Wells was "dishonest" with his work[12] and biologist Jerry Coyne who said Wells "misused" and "mischaracterized" his work on peppered moths.[13][14] Specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design[15] as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience.[16]
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".[9]
Jerry Coyne wrote Icons "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."[17]
Of the Wells' motive, 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...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]
Likewise Frederick Crews of The New York Review of Books wrote: "Wells mines the standard evolutionary textbooks for exaggerated claims and misleading examples, which he counts as marks against evolution itself. His goal, of course, is not to improve the next editions of those books but to get them replaced by ID counterparts."[18]
In 2002, Massimo Pigliucci devoted part of his Denying Evolution to refuting each point presented in Icons of Evolution.[19] Amongst the refutations Pigliucci noted several mistakes Wells made and outlined how Wells' oversimplified some issues to the detriment of the subject. Pigliucci also wrote an article-length review in BioScience and concludes, "Wells, as much as he desperately tries to debunk what to him is the most crucial component of evolutionary theory, the history of human descent, is backed against the wall by his own knowledge of biology."[20] In 2005, Pigliucci debated Wells on Uncommon Knowledge on broader issues of evolution and intelligent design.[21]
Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross discuss Wells' book in Creationism's Trojan Horse. One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that Haeckel forged images of embryos that are allegedly still in biology books. Forrest and Gross noted that Haeckel's, "a conservative Christian youth," work was "'fudged', as biologist Massimo Pigliucci says, not 'faked'." However, "we have excellent photographs, to which students can obtain easy access. Many or most colleges students of introductory biology actually see the embryos in the laboratory . . ." Moreover, "vertebrate embryos, for most of the longest period of middevelopment, do look remarkably alike, pretty much, but not exactly, as Haeckel figured them in some of his drawings"(emphasis in original)."[22]
Richard Weisenberg, biologist at Temple University, wrote an open-letter to Wells in the Philadelphia Inquirer noting "Evolution by natural selection and the origin of life are entirely different subjects. ... The validity of any particular theory of biological origins (and there are several) has no relevancy to the well-established validity of evolution by natural selection."[23] He continued, "I can only conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural selection."[23]
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,[24][25] and PZ Myers.[26] That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church[27] and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"[28] 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.[29][30][31][32][33] The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion."[34]
In 2009, Patricia Princehouse, Professor at Case Western Reserve University, testified in a Mount Vernon City School District hearing that Icons was full of fraudulent representations of material in science textbooks.[35] Christopher Hitchens describes the book as "unlikely even to rate a footnote in the history of piffle".[36]
Reception by creationists[edit]
The book has been praised by creationists and fellows of the Discovery Institute Dean Kenyon[37] and Paul Chien.[38][39]
Wells' icons[edit]
Wells focused on 10 examples that he said were commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "icons".[1] He evaluated how seven of these icons are treated in ten "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.[1] Wells contended that the 10 case studies used to illustrate and teach evolution are flawed. Wells' ten "icons" were:
1 Miller–Urey experiment
2 Darwin's tree of life
3 Homology in vertebrate limbs
4 Haeckel's embryos
5 Archaeopteryx
6 Peppered moth
7 Darwin's finches
8 Four-winged fruit flies
9 Fossil horses
10 Hominid evolution
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.[1] Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in any of the textbooks.[1]
Enough said.
February 19, 2020
Garbage science. Creationist misunderstandings of evolution in book form.
Read this, "Icon of Obfuscation" Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution
and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong by Nick Matzke
Standard Disclaimer
Look at what shelves this book is on. If it is 'did-not-finish' then I tried it & didn't like it. No, I do not have to finish a book to give it a star rating or a review. If you don't like that, tough. Have a nice day.
If the book is on my 'do-not-read' shelf then it was shoved under my nose or something about it made me think I might want to read it. I did some research & found that it was crap. I'll post why I think so & might even rate it with 1 star if it is really bad. If you disagree & want to discuss in the comments, you need to prove that it isn't with solid evidence. That means peer reviewed science, not anecdotes, opinions, or sites that are biased. Read the which is & follow its guidelines for providing proof. I'm willing to look at good evidence. I've been wrong before.
Comments that don't adhere to the above will be deleted. We're not going to change our minds if you just want to troll. If you repeatedly troll, your comment will be flagged & support will spank you. I may block you, too.
Read this, "Icon of Obfuscation" Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution
and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong by Nick Matzke
Standard Disclaimer
Look at what shelves this book is on. If it is 'did-not-finish' then I tried it & didn't like it. No, I do not have to finish a book to give it a star rating or a review. If you don't like that, tough. Have a nice day.
If the book is on my 'do-not-read' shelf then it was shoved under my nose or something about it made me think I might want to read it. I did some research & found that it was crap. I'll post why I think so & might even rate it with 1 star if it is really bad. If you disagree & want to discuss in the comments, you need to prove that it isn't with solid evidence. That means peer reviewed science, not anecdotes, opinions, or sites that are biased. Read the which is & follow its guidelines for providing proof. I'm willing to look at good evidence. I've been wrong before.
Comments that don't adhere to the above will be deleted. We're not going to change our minds if you just want to troll. If you repeatedly troll, your comment will be flagged & support will spank you. I may block you, too.
August 6, 2011
Is evolution true? One of the main reasons we are given for an affirmative answer is that the vast majority of biologists believe that it is. Indeed the scientific consensus should not be easily dismissed. After all, science, due to the rigors of the scientific method and peer review, is said to be self-correcting. But in the case of evolution, is it that simple? Biologists are of necessity specialists; they can have first hand knowledge of evidences for evolution only within their specific field. How then is an embryologist going to learn about the fossil evidence, or a paleontologist about genetic evidence? The answer is, from the same sources as non-biologists: that is, from university biology textbooks and magazine articles.
Icons of evolution are specific examples that turn up over and over again in the textbooks, held up as proof that evolution has occurred and does indeed still occur. Some of these include Darwin's tree of life, vertebrate embryos, and peppered moths, among others. Do these conclusively prove Darwin's theory? Author Jonathan Wells examines ten of these icons. What makes his work worthy of attention is that he gets all his data from the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature. He cites scientists who are experts in the field in question; they are not creationists, but scientists who are in fact persuaded that Darwin's theory, at least at some level, is true.
The most important icon of evolution is Darwin's tree of life. The theory of evolution predicts that beginning with a universal common ancestor, we should expect to see a bottom-up pattern in the fossil record. Small changes should appear first in the oldest geologic strata, gradually increasing in diversity until we see phylum-level differences at the top, in the most recent strata. But with what has been called the biological big bang, the Cambrian explosion, we see just the opposite: the distinct body plans of the phyla appear fully formed and without evolutionary precursors in the Cambrian strata of 530 million years ago. Subsequent diversification occurs but never outside of these body plans. Rather than a tree, the picture is more like a lawn, or an orchard. This top-down pattern that we actually see turns Darwin's prediction on its head. How do the textbooks deal with this? Wells tells us that they either ignore the Cambrian explosion altogether or give it one line and wave it off. If you get your information from the textbooks you'll come away thinking that the fossil record is a bulwark of support for Darwinian evolution.
Vertebrate embryos are an important icon of evolution because Darwin recognized the problems posed by the fossil record. He was impressed by the drawings by embryologist Ernst Haeckel of embryos from various classes of vertebrates which purported to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop. Darwin was convinced that this was due to common ancestry and in fact considered this "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of" his theory. These exact drawings are found in many modern textbooks, including Douglas Futuyma's 1999 graduate level textbook called "Evolutionary Biology." Yet biologists have known since Darwin's time that Haeckel faked his drawings. In fact vertebrate embryos never look alike at their earliest stages; they clearly follow different pathways and only superficially converge at a middle stage which Haeckel exaggerated and called the first stage.
The significance of the peppered moths icon is that it supposedly demonstrates evolution happening right before our eyes. The percentage of light and dark moths in a given population seemed to fluctuate in direct relation to the tree trunk darkening soot from pollution. It was thought to be clearly a case of natural selection, the selecting agent being bird predation and camouflage. Most of the textbooks Wells surveyed include pictures of these moths resting on tree trunks, either camouflaged or exposed, depending on the extent of tree trunk-darkening pollution. But further investigation showed that following anti-pollution laws, the lighter varieties returned to abundance before the tree trunks lightened. This led to the discovery, made in the 1980s, that peppered moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks, but reside higher in the upper canopy. So where do the photos come from? They had to be staged by gluing dead specimens or manually placing live ones (which are sluggish in daylight) on the trunks. Clearly the picture is more complicated: natural selection is not demonstrated by showing moths outside of their natural hiding places, and it is inappropriate for textbooks to uncritically continue to reproduce these photos.
Is evolution true? If these and the other icons of evolution that we find in textbooks are the best evidence we have, how can we say yes? To appeal to the scientific consensus no longer carries as much weight if these icons helped to establish that consensus. And if science is a self-correcting enterprise, why do these distortions last for so long? Returning once again to Douglas Futuyma's textbook "Evolutionary Biology", we find a remark which is not unique but is found in different words in other textbooks (eg. the promotion of Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker thesis in another book): "Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous...It was Darwin's theory of evolution...that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism that has since dominated Western thought."
The commitment to naturalistic philosophy that gave rise to Darwinism in the first place is still clearly an a priori which as a first principle makes the icons of evolution seem reasonable. But when evidence is distorted in order to further a particular worldview, science suffers. Darwinian evolution could in theory still be true, but we are not going to arrive at an answer if science is straightjacketed by the demands that it conform to a particular view of reality. Science needs to be the search for truth and to that end, the icons of evolution need to be removed from textbooks.
Icons of evolution are specific examples that turn up over and over again in the textbooks, held up as proof that evolution has occurred and does indeed still occur. Some of these include Darwin's tree of life, vertebrate embryos, and peppered moths, among others. Do these conclusively prove Darwin's theory? Author Jonathan Wells examines ten of these icons. What makes his work worthy of attention is that he gets all his data from the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature. He cites scientists who are experts in the field in question; they are not creationists, but scientists who are in fact persuaded that Darwin's theory, at least at some level, is true.
The most important icon of evolution is Darwin's tree of life. The theory of evolution predicts that beginning with a universal common ancestor, we should expect to see a bottom-up pattern in the fossil record. Small changes should appear first in the oldest geologic strata, gradually increasing in diversity until we see phylum-level differences at the top, in the most recent strata. But with what has been called the biological big bang, the Cambrian explosion, we see just the opposite: the distinct body plans of the phyla appear fully formed and without evolutionary precursors in the Cambrian strata of 530 million years ago. Subsequent diversification occurs but never outside of these body plans. Rather than a tree, the picture is more like a lawn, or an orchard. This top-down pattern that we actually see turns Darwin's prediction on its head. How do the textbooks deal with this? Wells tells us that they either ignore the Cambrian explosion altogether or give it one line and wave it off. If you get your information from the textbooks you'll come away thinking that the fossil record is a bulwark of support for Darwinian evolution.
Vertebrate embryos are an important icon of evolution because Darwin recognized the problems posed by the fossil record. He was impressed by the drawings by embryologist Ernst Haeckel of embryos from various classes of vertebrates which purported to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop. Darwin was convinced that this was due to common ancestry and in fact considered this "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of" his theory. These exact drawings are found in many modern textbooks, including Douglas Futuyma's 1999 graduate level textbook called "Evolutionary Biology." Yet biologists have known since Darwin's time that Haeckel faked his drawings. In fact vertebrate embryos never look alike at their earliest stages; they clearly follow different pathways and only superficially converge at a middle stage which Haeckel exaggerated and called the first stage.
The significance of the peppered moths icon is that it supposedly demonstrates evolution happening right before our eyes. The percentage of light and dark moths in a given population seemed to fluctuate in direct relation to the tree trunk darkening soot from pollution. It was thought to be clearly a case of natural selection, the selecting agent being bird predation and camouflage. Most of the textbooks Wells surveyed include pictures of these moths resting on tree trunks, either camouflaged or exposed, depending on the extent of tree trunk-darkening pollution. But further investigation showed that following anti-pollution laws, the lighter varieties returned to abundance before the tree trunks lightened. This led to the discovery, made in the 1980s, that peppered moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks, but reside higher in the upper canopy. So where do the photos come from? They had to be staged by gluing dead specimens or manually placing live ones (which are sluggish in daylight) on the trunks. Clearly the picture is more complicated: natural selection is not demonstrated by showing moths outside of their natural hiding places, and it is inappropriate for textbooks to uncritically continue to reproduce these photos.
Is evolution true? If these and the other icons of evolution that we find in textbooks are the best evidence we have, how can we say yes? To appeal to the scientific consensus no longer carries as much weight if these icons helped to establish that consensus. And if science is a self-correcting enterprise, why do these distortions last for so long? Returning once again to Douglas Futuyma's textbook "Evolutionary Biology", we find a remark which is not unique but is found in different words in other textbooks (eg. the promotion of Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker thesis in another book): "Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous...It was Darwin's theory of evolution...that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism that has since dominated Western thought."
The commitment to naturalistic philosophy that gave rise to Darwinism in the first place is still clearly an a priori which as a first principle makes the icons of evolution seem reasonable. But when evidence is distorted in order to further a particular worldview, science suffers. Darwinian evolution could in theory still be true, but we are not going to arrive at an answer if science is straightjacketed by the demands that it conform to a particular view of reality. Science needs to be the search for truth and to that end, the icons of evolution need to be removed from textbooks.
January 10, 2013
How do I...
Ugh, I want my evening back.
I picked this up after seeing it being highly rated here and also used as a talking point in a documentary I was watching on Netflix. Thought I'd give it a chance.
I'd like to believe I'm someone who doesn't get angry often, if ever, but this book made me visibly angry.
How do people reading this believe it? In an age of information, to be so capable of ignorance so as to believe this drivel is maddening!
Examples like Haeckel's embryos aren't even taught anymore because it was found to be wrong. No current text book in decades has ever used it. For those of you arguing that it's proof of evolution to be wrong it's proof that someone got something wrong and it was fixed.
Oh! And the use of the word evidence! Goodness, people who endorse this book don't seem to know what the word means!
When this book talks of Darwin's Finches, no scientific citation is done. It is just wide speculation and opinion. This does not make for a good argument, this makes for the appearance of someone standing on a box shouting.
I'm done with this book. If you are reading this and wondering whether or not to pick up a copy, stop. Don't even touch it. You'll be wasting your time along with filling your head with misinformation.
Ugh, I want my evening back.
I picked this up after seeing it being highly rated here and also used as a talking point in a documentary I was watching on Netflix. Thought I'd give it a chance.
I'd like to believe I'm someone who doesn't get angry often, if ever, but this book made me visibly angry.
How do people reading this believe it? In an age of information, to be so capable of ignorance so as to believe this drivel is maddening!
Examples like Haeckel's embryos aren't even taught anymore because it was found to be wrong. No current text book in decades has ever used it. For those of you arguing that it's proof of evolution to be wrong it's proof that someone got something wrong and it was fixed.
Oh! And the use of the word evidence! Goodness, people who endorse this book don't seem to know what the word means!
When this book talks of Darwin's Finches, no scientific citation is done. It is just wide speculation and opinion. This does not make for a good argument, this makes for the appearance of someone standing on a box shouting.
I'm done with this book. If you are reading this and wondering whether or not to pick up a copy, stop. Don't even touch it. You'll be wasting your time along with filling your head with misinformation.
July 30, 2011
An excellent review of the evidences that are used in most standard publications that purportedly support evolutionary theory. It's nice to be able to understand these "evidences" in light of critical information. Americans are rarely (if ever) presented with both the pros and cons of evolution and hardly ever told the full stories behind the "evidences": staged speckled moth pictures, inaccurate representations of embryos, four-winged fruit flies with extra wings that don't function, just to name a few. I am so glad I stumbled upon this book and now have a more critical view of the standard evolutionary icons. It bothers me that neo-Darwinian evolution has become dogmatism in America. In many European countries, scientists are free to follow the evidence where it leads, but in America, scientists risk being labeled as creationists (even if they aren't) and may be fired or denied grants if they dare to challenge evolution. I, for one, am glad that there are books like this that are willing to tackle the weaknesses of evolution, especially in a society where we are largely discouraged from this kind of pursuit.
February 21, 2010
This book was eye opening and thought provoking. Despite vehement denials from the pro-Darwin crowd, there are significant unanswered questions about the theory of evolution. The evidence presented in this book is that the Darwinists have not really proven their case on a scientific basis. It would seem that the evidence is being propped up by a sort of fanatic devotion to a preconceived conclusion.
For years I had heard that "the data are overwhelming" and that there was a scientific consensus - that evolution was indisputable. This book changed my mind.
Jonathon Wells has been pilloried in the scientific community because of his religion. The prejudice is that a "creationist" as scientists like to paint him, cannot possibly be objective in his conclusions. They even claim that anyone who has a religion just doesn't have the scientific rigor to draw any adequate conclusions. This is utterly and blatantly false and ignores the fact that there are even atheists who refute the Darwinian mechanism.
Jonathon takes 10 icons of evolution, such as homologous structures, the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion and others, and show how the evidence has been gerrymandered into supporting Darwin's theory. This is a rebuke of so-called scientific objectivism and you will no doubt encounter stiff resistance as you discuss this book with others who have bought the propoganda. Nevertheless, you cannot find the truth by ignoring the evidence or stretching it to mean something that it doesn't.
I heartily recommend this book.
For years I had heard that "the data are overwhelming" and that there was a scientific consensus - that evolution was indisputable. This book changed my mind.
Jonathon Wells has been pilloried in the scientific community because of his religion. The prejudice is that a "creationist" as scientists like to paint him, cannot possibly be objective in his conclusions. They even claim that anyone who has a religion just doesn't have the scientific rigor to draw any adequate conclusions. This is utterly and blatantly false and ignores the fact that there are even atheists who refute the Darwinian mechanism.
Jonathon takes 10 icons of evolution, such as homologous structures, the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion and others, and show how the evidence has been gerrymandered into supporting Darwin's theory. This is a rebuke of so-called scientific objectivism and you will no doubt encounter stiff resistance as you discuss this book with others who have bought the propoganda. Nevertheless, you cannot find the truth by ignoring the evidence or stretching it to mean something that it doesn't.
I heartily recommend this book.
July 11, 2008
Since evolution is a theory, why are we not allowed to question it and debate it? Why is it taught as the gospel truth? Why is Darwin's theory the only theory allowed to be taught in school? Interesting reading if one wishes to look at the information being taught.
November 27, 2012
For those of you who tend to believe science, but are interested by many of the positive reviews of this book, I encourage you to read the following from Nick Matzke:
For those who say "it's just a theory", regardless of what you may believe about evolution, here is why the argument "it's just a theory" is invalid:
For those who say "it's just a theory", regardless of what you may believe about evolution, here is why the argument "it's just a theory" is invalid:
August 10, 2008
I hesitate to put this in non-fiction actually, because so much of it is just made up. Personally, as a Christian and a scientist both, I find it horrifying that a supposed Christian could tell so many half truths and outright lies. Wells had an agenda for this book, and it didn't include being honest and open about the concept of evolution. He should be ashamed of himself.
November 18, 2010
Journal of Evolutionary Biology Confirms Jonathan Wells (by Name) on Peppered Moth Myth
June 18, 2020
"أتاح داروين الإمكانية لأن تكون مُلحِداً مكتملاً عقلياً"
-Richard Dawkins-
أظهر هذا الكتاب التطور علي أنه أقرب ما يكون إلى خيمياء العصر الحديث، ذلك العلم الذي كان يفترض إمكانية تحويل أي معدن إلى معدن آخر، عن طريق تغيير نسبة المواد الأربعه المُكوِنة له، كذلك التطور يفترض أن للكائنات جميعاً تمتلك أصل مشترك بسبب التشابه البنيوي (homology) فيما بينها، متجاهلاً الكثير من العوائق التي تقف أمام النظريه، منها أن علماء الجيولوجيا أثبتوا أن الجو البدائي الذي نشأت فيه الحياة كان يحتوي علي الأكسجين، و هو ما يمنع تكون الأحماض الأمينيه، التي أفترض العلماء أنها منشأ الحياة، و منها أيضا الأنفجار الكامبيري (Cambrian explosion) الذي يبدوا فيه و كأن كل الشُعَب الحيوانيه ظهرت علي الأرض فجأة في العصر الكامبيري، دون وجود لأحفوريات للسلف الوسيط التي انبثقت منه، و هو ما يتناسب مع الخلق أكثر من التطور، و أضف إلى ما سبق أن الأجزاء المتناظره في الكائنات الحية ذات الأصل المشترك، لا تتناظر علي المستوي الجنيني، بل تأتي من أجزاء مختلفة في كلا الجنينين المتناظرين، و هذا ما ينزِعُ حجراً آخر من بنيانِ النظرية، و بالإضافة إلى هذه الأدلة العلميه هناك مغالطات منطقية وقع فيها الدارونيون و التي تتمثل في الإستدلال الدائري بين الأصل المشترك و التشابه البنيوي بين الكائنات، أي أن الأصل المشترك أنتج تشابه بنيوي و التشابه البنيوي دليل على الأصل المشترك و هكذا دواليك.
"…العلما� يحاولون منذ أكثر من قرن الوصول إلى إجماع حول أصل الإنسان المعاصر، فلماذا لم يصلوا إليه حتى الآن؟!، ذلك لأنه لا تزال العناصر الأسطورية في دراسة أصل الإنسان موجودة."
الحجج التي يستند إليها الدارونيون واهية للغايه، و ذلك لأن الأحافير المكتشفه، منها ما هو مزوَّر بتركيب فك غوريلا علي جمجمة إنسان مثل ما حدث مع إنسان نيندرثال (Homo neanderthalensis)، و منها ما يمكن إعادة تشكيله علي أكثر من نحوِّ دون مرجعيه واضحه، سوي هوي الباحث.
إنهم لا يدافعون عن النظرية من منطلق كونها علماً خالصاً و لكن لأنهم أنزلوها منزِل العقيدة، التي يقبلونها رغم دوغمائيتها.
-Richard Dawkins-
أظهر هذا الكتاب التطور علي أنه أقرب ما يكون إلى خيمياء العصر الحديث، ذلك العلم الذي كان يفترض إمكانية تحويل أي معدن إلى معدن آخر، عن طريق تغيير نسبة المواد الأربعه المُكوِنة له، كذلك التطور يفترض أن للكائنات جميعاً تمتلك أصل مشترك بسبب التشابه البنيوي (homology) فيما بينها، متجاهلاً الكثير من العوائق التي تقف أمام النظريه، منها أن علماء الجيولوجيا أثبتوا أن الجو البدائي الذي نشأت فيه الحياة كان يحتوي علي الأكسجين، و هو ما يمنع تكون الأحماض الأمينيه، التي أفترض العلماء أنها منشأ الحياة، و منها أيضا الأنفجار الكامبيري (Cambrian explosion) الذي يبدوا فيه و كأن كل الشُعَب الحيوانيه ظهرت علي الأرض فجأة في العصر الكامبيري، دون وجود لأحفوريات للسلف الوسيط التي انبثقت منه، و هو ما يتناسب مع الخلق أكثر من التطور، و أضف إلى ما سبق أن الأجزاء المتناظره في الكائنات الحية ذات الأصل المشترك، لا تتناظر علي المستوي الجنيني، بل تأتي من أجزاء مختلفة في كلا الجنينين المتناظرين، و هذا ما ينزِعُ حجراً آخر من بنيانِ النظرية، و بالإضافة إلى هذه الأدلة العلميه هناك مغالطات منطقية وقع فيها الدارونيون و التي تتمثل في الإستدلال الدائري بين الأصل المشترك و التشابه البنيوي بين الكائنات، أي أن الأصل المشترك أنتج تشابه بنيوي و التشابه البنيوي دليل على الأصل المشترك و هكذا دواليك.
"…العلما� يحاولون منذ أكثر من قرن الوصول إلى إجماع حول أصل الإنسان المعاصر، فلماذا لم يصلوا إليه حتى الآن؟!، ذلك لأنه لا تزال العناصر الأسطورية في دراسة أصل الإنسان موجودة."
الحجج التي يستند إليها الدارونيون واهية للغايه، و ذلك لأن الأحافير المكتشفه، منها ما هو مزوَّر بتركيب فك غوريلا علي جمجمة إنسان مثل ما حدث مع إنسان نيندرثال (Homo neanderthalensis)، و منها ما يمكن إعادة تشكيله علي أكثر من نحوِّ دون مرجعيه واضحه، سوي هوي الباحث.
إنهم لا يدافعون عن النظرية من منطلق كونها علماً خالصاً و لكن لأنهم أنزلوها منزِل العقيدة، التي يقبلونها رغم دوغمائيتها.
August 18, 2009
"Icons of Evolution" is a excellent primer for people who may not have heard of the inconsistencies and problems with many of Darwinian Evolution's primary "proofs". When most people think of Darwinism, they think of his Tree of Life, or drawings of similar looking embryos, or the creation of living molecules through replication of Earth's early environment in a laboratory, or the series of drawings showing an ape slowly developing into a fully formed human male. These images and icons are nearly synonymous with Darwinian Evolution, and have been among the primary arguments advanced by Darwinists since the late 19th century.
In "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?", Jonathan Wells looks at each of these icons (and others) to determine if the icon really can provide the amount of scientific evidence required to sustain this theory that has far-reaching influence in our day and age. He also takes time to evaluate some of the top biology textbooks, in regards to their accuracy on these topics.
He presents a very compelling case that not a single one of these icons is deserving of its iconic status. In some cases, these icons have been dismissed decades ago by the scientific community but are still being taught as truth in textbooks. Dr. Wells has done an enormous amount of research and reading for this book and all of his references and suggestions for further reading are listed in the back of the book. He quotes experts from nearly every field of natural science imaginable and builds his arguments by sampling liberally from other scientists who have expressed similar concerns. He is careful to note in the Forward however that the people he is quoting likely do not agree with his point-of-view when it comes to the inaccuracy of Darwinism. He is clear that he is not trying to make it seem like they agree with him, but he is quoting them for the simple reason that they are the experts in their fields and their quotes speak to the "evidence".
Dr. Wells is part of a growing number of scientists who are willing to buck the establishment and question Darwinian Evolution. This is the equivalent of an unpardonable sin in American Science. He relates a funny story about a Chinese scientist who came to give a talk at a conference here in the States. During his talk, he mentioned some of the inherent inconsistencies with some of the evidence advanced for Darwinian Evolution. After his talk, he was asked some questions, but nothing related to his statements against Darwinism. When Dr. Wells was talking with this Chinese scientist afterward, the scientist made the sad-but-true observation that in his country people are free to criticize Darwin, but not the government. In the States, he said, people are free to criticize the government, but not Darwin. The censorship and stifling of dissent is equivalent to Red China.
This book is an eye-opener. I had read some of the arguments by ID scientists and anti-Darwinists, but none had gone into such detail and depth as "Icons of Evolution". It does get technical, but not overly so. I re-read a couple of chapters to make sure that I understood the argument but there was nothing that was above my head, science-wise. I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read this book, pro or anti Darwinian Evolution. Afterall, if you don't examine both sides of the argument, how well-versed can your opinion be?
Thank you for taking the time to read my review.
In "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?", Jonathan Wells looks at each of these icons (and others) to determine if the icon really can provide the amount of scientific evidence required to sustain this theory that has far-reaching influence in our day and age. He also takes time to evaluate some of the top biology textbooks, in regards to their accuracy on these topics.
He presents a very compelling case that not a single one of these icons is deserving of its iconic status. In some cases, these icons have been dismissed decades ago by the scientific community but are still being taught as truth in textbooks. Dr. Wells has done an enormous amount of research and reading for this book and all of his references and suggestions for further reading are listed in the back of the book. He quotes experts from nearly every field of natural science imaginable and builds his arguments by sampling liberally from other scientists who have expressed similar concerns. He is careful to note in the Forward however that the people he is quoting likely do not agree with his point-of-view when it comes to the inaccuracy of Darwinism. He is clear that he is not trying to make it seem like they agree with him, but he is quoting them for the simple reason that they are the experts in their fields and their quotes speak to the "evidence".
Dr. Wells is part of a growing number of scientists who are willing to buck the establishment and question Darwinian Evolution. This is the equivalent of an unpardonable sin in American Science. He relates a funny story about a Chinese scientist who came to give a talk at a conference here in the States. During his talk, he mentioned some of the inherent inconsistencies with some of the evidence advanced for Darwinian Evolution. After his talk, he was asked some questions, but nothing related to his statements against Darwinism. When Dr. Wells was talking with this Chinese scientist afterward, the scientist made the sad-but-true observation that in his country people are free to criticize Darwin, but not the government. In the States, he said, people are free to criticize the government, but not Darwin. The censorship and stifling of dissent is equivalent to Red China.
This book is an eye-opener. I had read some of the arguments by ID scientists and anti-Darwinists, but none had gone into such detail and depth as "Icons of Evolution". It does get technical, but not overly so. I re-read a couple of chapters to make sure that I understood the argument but there was nothing that was above my head, science-wise. I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read this book, pro or anti Darwinian Evolution. Afterall, if you don't examine both sides of the argument, how well-versed can your opinion be?
Thank you for taking the time to read my review.
November 17, 2018
It's good for what it tries to do: provide a broad overview of the flaws in popular icons of Darwinian macroevolution. I was pleasantly surprised to find Wells's voice calm and level-headed in this one. Having read his , I expected more frantic ranting, but Wells stays pretty balanced here. Unlike the first book, the point of this one is to criticize flaws in biology textbooks, so while Wells does much of the same here, he's much more focused and level-headed about it.
I still wish some of the chapters were stronger. The ones on horse fossils and human origins were weaker than I wanted. But don't let the hokey cover art from the ICR fool you -- this is a valuable read with good sources. Still not quite the book I'm looking for, but getting there.
For something deeper I would recommend Johnson's .
I still wish some of the chapters were stronger. The ones on horse fossils and human origins were weaker than I wanted. But don't let the hokey cover art from the ICR fool you -- this is a valuable read with good sources. Still not quite the book I'm looking for, but getting there.
For something deeper I would recommend Johnson's .
March 18, 2011
Very well-balanced. Even though his intent is to point out flaws in the major arguments Evolutionists rely on, I could not tell whether Wells was a Creationist or an Evolutionist. What was interesting was how incorrectly public schools are teaching evolution. Almost all the popular textbooks rely on false or misinterpreted data to support evolution. He points out that evolutionists and Darwinists are the new "devotees," twisting evidence or lying about it when it does not coincide with their beliefs. Oh the irony.
February 4, 2012
Excellent and well-reasoned arguments against such evolutionist articles of faith as the Miller-Urey experiment; tree of life; homology in vertebrate limbs; Haeckel's embryos; archaeopteryx; peppered moths; Galapagos finches, etc.
December 17, 2021
في البداية لابد أن تعرف أن د. جوناثان ويلز (تطوري مرتد) ان جاز التعبير لأنك ستجد معتنقي عقيدة التطور العرب يرددون كلام الشعبويين الغربيين في أن ويلز وبيهي وآكس وماير وتور وغيرهم من اصحاب الدرجات العلمية المرموقة والابحاث المحكمة المنشورة هم مجرد "خلقويين نصارى" مع ان معظمهم مرتد عن الداروينية بأسباب علمية بحتة والبعض الآخر كجيمس تور لم يؤمن بسخافاتها اصلا لأنه ببساطة يكسب عيشه من تصنيع الجزيئات "التخليق الجزيئي" ويعلم مدى تعقيد الخلية الواحدة أن تأتي بالصدفة فضلا عن ملايين الخلايا التي تنشيء وتميز كل كائن عن أخر.
مقدمة لابد منها لتعلم ان ويلزارتد عن الداروينية بعدما درس تلك الأيقونات المزعومة لا انه كتب الكتاب لأنه خلقوي شرير يريد تشويه مقام التطور العظيم
يحدثنا ويلز عن عدد من أيقونات التطور التي نراها في كتب الأحياء التطورية كأنها حقائق ثابتة غير قابلة للشك ونراها في برامج تبسيط العلوم الشعبوية والتي لا يكلف مقدميها انفسهم التيقن منها او حتى عرض الاعتراضات عليها
لن أحدثك عن الأيقونات نفسها حتى لا أحرق لك محتوى الكتاب ولكن كل ايقونة بين مزيفة أو تم تزييف نتائجها أو تم رسم سيناريو تخيلي عرضت فيه جزء من أحفورة ما أو استدلال دائري فالأيقونة دليل على التطور لأن التطور دليل على أنها أيقونة.
في الختام لا أدعوك ان ترتد عن التطور مثل ويلز ومثلي أنا أيضا ولكن أدعوك ألا تسلم عقلك لمؤدلجين ومنتفعين من اليوتيوب والدعم التطوري الذين يخبرونك بسذاجة أن اجزاء خلوية اندمجت بالصدفة وقالت "قوم نعمل عظمة" بينما يحدثك برفيسور الكيمياء الجزيئية صاحب عشرات براءات الاختراع أن فكرة تغير خلية بالصدفة فضلا عن نشأتها هو محض هراء
فقط اكتب اسم جيمس تور في محركات البحث وتعرف على ابحاثه وقيمته العلمية ثم قارن ما يقول بما تقوله فلانة ويقوله فلان من مسترزقي اليوتيوب "وهذا ليس عيب لو بتقديم محتوى حقيقي"
والى اللقاء في مراجعة كتاب آخر
مقدمة لابد منها لتعلم ان ويلزارتد عن الداروينية بعدما درس تلك الأيقونات المزعومة لا انه كتب الكتاب لأنه خلقوي شرير يريد تشويه مقام التطور العظيم
يحدثنا ويلز عن عدد من أيقونات التطور التي نراها في كتب الأحياء التطورية كأنها حقائق ثابتة غير قابلة للشك ونراها في برامج تبسيط العلوم الشعبوية والتي لا يكلف مقدميها انفسهم التيقن منها او حتى عرض الاعتراضات عليها
لن أحدثك عن الأيقونات نفسها حتى لا أحرق لك محتوى الكتاب ولكن كل ايقونة بين مزيفة أو تم تزييف نتائجها أو تم رسم سيناريو تخيلي عرضت فيه جزء من أحفورة ما أو استدلال دائري فالأيقونة دليل على التطور لأن التطور دليل على أنها أيقونة.
في الختام لا أدعوك ان ترتد عن التطور مثل ويلز ومثلي أنا أيضا ولكن أدعوك ألا تسلم عقلك لمؤدلجين ومنتفعين من اليوتيوب والدعم التطوري الذين يخبرونك بسذاجة أن اجزاء خلوية اندمجت بالصدفة وقالت "قوم نعمل عظمة" بينما يحدثك برفيسور الكيمياء الجزيئية صاحب عشرات براءات الاختراع أن فكرة تغير خلية بالصدفة فضلا عن نشأتها هو محض هراء
فقط اكتب اسم جيمس تور في محركات البحث وتعرف على ابحاثه وقيمته العلمية ثم قارن ما يقول بما تقوله فلانة ويقوله فلان من مسترزقي اليوتيوب "وهذا ليس عيب لو بتقديم محتوى حقيقي"
والى اللقاء في مراجعة كتاب آخر
July 3, 2012
Excellent book uncovering the blind religious belief system that is hidden behind the darwinian theory of evolution. It uncovers how western philosophy and agenda has predominantly forced its views on the various sciences, and reveals how very little science is envolved in the so called theory of evolution.
October 23, 2012
Wells truly outlines the objective road-blocks that keep Darwinian evolution from being a "fact". While there is no dispute of evolution in terms of micro-evolution (example: the modification of a species to adapt to its environment), macro-evolution (common descent) is still highly disputed as an objective evidentially-based empirical fact. Of course, there are Darwinian evolutionists that will sincerely disagree (example: Richard Dawkins) but they do so on a philosophical basis rather than on a scientific one. Their philosophical presuppositions keep them from being critical of the evolutionary theory that they, themselves, dogmatically accept without questions simply because the rest of the scientific community will reject and/or discredit them if they don't. Wells does an excellent job of laying out the critiques of evolution without applying a philosophical twist.
October 18, 2019
80
I have discovered that many [...] textbook illustrations distort the evidence for evolution. [...] Why hadn't they been noticed before? Then I discovered that other biologists have notices most of them, and have even criticized them in print. But their criticism have been ignored.
The pattern is consistent and suggests more than simple error. At the very least, it suggests that Darwinism encourages distortions of the truth [...] Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution
I have discovered that many [...] textbook illustrations distort the evidence for evolution. [...] Why hadn't they been noticed before? Then I discovered that other biologists have notices most of them, and have even criticized them in print. But their criticism have been ignored.
The pattern is consistent and suggests more than simple error. At the very least, it suggests that Darwinism encourages distortions of the truth [...] Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution
January 20, 2012
Good popular level treatment of evolution's serious problems.
March 17, 2016
كتاب الاحاديث الموضوعات في فضائل دارون
November 17, 2019
“Icons of Evolution (Science or Myth)� is an important book for the scientific community, not for debunking the myths presented in text books, but for the last chapter.It notes: Evolutionary biology is not science; it is not truth seeking. Evolutionary thinking is a belief system that has no more place in educational curriculum than religious dogma. Creationism and Evolutionary Theory cannot both be right but they can both be wrong. Having to choose between them is like having to decide if a rainbow is black or white. I am neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist � I think they are both sacred nonsense (one religious, one false science).
I started this book some eighteen years ago and got up to page 192, then during a move had packed it away, only to bring it out again a couple of months ago and started rereading it a few days ago. Fortunately I had highlighted key passages and was able to catch up quickly to my jumping off point. My crusade against evolutionary theory goes back to 1983, before Intelligent design was a known label. As an aside design may be interpreted to mean intended change, and intelligent design becomes intended intended change. A redundancy that exists in random mutation where mutation is random change leaving random mutation as random random change.
As a person with a science degree, as an open-minded truth seeker, I am offended by the use of the term Fact of Evolution. It is more like the Fallacy of Evolution. I am ashamed at how easily other ‘scientists� use evolution as a done deal. My background comes from the more pure sciences: astronomy, physics, chemistry and later archaeology; I didn’t pay much attention to biology until challenged to defend evolutionary theory. I couldn’t. The more I investigated (going on four decades now) the more implausible it seemed.
To be sure there are lower levels of evolutionary theory that work (for a time) but it’s like saying you have five speeds on your bicycle: low speed, high speed, speed of sound, speed of light and warp speed. Just because you have the first two you cannot extrapolate to having the other three. Speed of sound might be possible in a space suit pedalling down Olympus Mon on Mars but it will be rare thing.
In rereading the book I found a quote I had been looking for on page 58 ‘In 1999, a Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on Cambrian fossils visited the United States to lecture� “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin�. It applies in Canada. I wanted to know the author of that quote but alas his name is not cited, making me concerned the quote is an academic myth in itself.
My beef is that evolutionary theory purports to be science. It is a shame for me because I believe in the objectivity of science and it is not present in evolutionary discussions. It constitutes scientific misconduct (to paraphrase page 233) where a breach of candour is deception. Wells, the author, notes that Darwin finches increased 5% in beak size during a severe drought. A scientific booklet claims that if such droughts occurred every ten years then a new species of finch might arise in 200 years (page 234), where the authors of the booklet omitted that average beak size returned after the drought ended. Then the paragraph concludes with noting Professor E. Johnson called this ‘sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail�.
Near the bottom of that page (234) Wells mentions “…dogmatic promoters of Darwinism did not see themselves as deceiving. (Do stock promoters?) Yet they seriously distorted the evidence � often knowingly. If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientist does it?� and onto the top of page 235 “…some dogmatic Darwinists have exploited their evocative power to a degree that would make demagogues and advertising executives blush. This is not what we have been led to expect from scientists.”� This is my sentiment.
As is my outlook that “…the present Darwinian establishment and its distortions of the truth� (page 240) should not be entitled to promote their belief system with our money, unless perhaps part of a religious studies syllabus comparing belief systems.
The book looks at ten ‘myths� presented in ten textbooks. I can’t speak for how prevalent those texts were in use but they are listed in the Appendix on pages 249-250. I am familiar with some of their (mis) usages. It begins with the Miller-Urey Experiment, trying to recreate early conditions on earth that might have given rise to simple amino acids. Yes the experiment has been questioned but Wells point is that its use was still presented in textbooks.
Regarding Darwin’s Tree of Life: It has been so difficult to show that one lifeform led to another (there is no common ancestor, anywhere, even dogs are no longer considered descendants of wolves, but rather cousins) that clades are now in prevalent use at the university level but the tree of life still gets posited in high school texts. DNA is now preferred to classify animals rather than morphological traits. As soon as DNA (a molecular code) was discovered, evolutionists should have been hollering ‘all bets are off� there is something going on and its not random mutation. Mutation might explain an occasional deviant gene such as sickle cell anemia but in no way can account for the light speed pedalling needed to explicate one intricate new gene never mind the hundreds of thousand (millions) that exist. It’s like saying if enough people play Super Mario Brothers game enough times it will become SuperMario II. Who believes that? Then why do they believe evolutionary theory has validity?
A concern I had from decades ago, when they didn’t know how many types of bacteria there were, only 200 were mentioned. That struck me as odd, the simplest of lifeforms having the least amount of diversity. If evolutionary theory was valid then it should have the most. That didn’t seem to bother the authors of the text of the biologists at the time. You would think they might have at least noted “Although there are only a few hundred known species of bacteria it is probably because not many biologists are pursuing investigation� rather than accepting it as fact and not commenting how odd that was.
Or take the “evolution of the eye� � evolutionists say it (a major sophisticated organ development) happened 43 independent times (one reference said 1500 times) yet these same group of scientists say blue eyes only came about once. If someone has blue eyes, they claim, it is only because it is inherited. Isn’t having blue eyes a more likelihood event by mutation than devising an eye in the first place (never mind multiple times)?
Peppered moths, light colored or dark colored? Wells� concern was showing the moths on tree trunks when they didn’t alight there. Frequency of appearance of the two types certainly supports lower level natural selection at work. When environmental conditions changed the frequency changed; the genes were still there to select from. Yet no green (or other colour) peppered moths appeared (evolved). Wouldn’t green be a good camouflage for hiding in trees?
My favourite icon is the Cambrian explosion. There is no precedent. Whamo � out of virtually nowhere many different phyla appear. This was not mutation generated; this was something else. As long as we are ‘stuck� with creationism and evolutionary theory as postulates hindering inquiring minds, we have an undiscovered area to explore.
I started this book some eighteen years ago and got up to page 192, then during a move had packed it away, only to bring it out again a couple of months ago and started rereading it a few days ago. Fortunately I had highlighted key passages and was able to catch up quickly to my jumping off point. My crusade against evolutionary theory goes back to 1983, before Intelligent design was a known label. As an aside design may be interpreted to mean intended change, and intelligent design becomes intended intended change. A redundancy that exists in random mutation where mutation is random change leaving random mutation as random random change.
As a person with a science degree, as an open-minded truth seeker, I am offended by the use of the term Fact of Evolution. It is more like the Fallacy of Evolution. I am ashamed at how easily other ‘scientists� use evolution as a done deal. My background comes from the more pure sciences: astronomy, physics, chemistry and later archaeology; I didn’t pay much attention to biology until challenged to defend evolutionary theory. I couldn’t. The more I investigated (going on four decades now) the more implausible it seemed.
To be sure there are lower levels of evolutionary theory that work (for a time) but it’s like saying you have five speeds on your bicycle: low speed, high speed, speed of sound, speed of light and warp speed. Just because you have the first two you cannot extrapolate to having the other three. Speed of sound might be possible in a space suit pedalling down Olympus Mon on Mars but it will be rare thing.
In rereading the book I found a quote I had been looking for on page 58 ‘In 1999, a Chinese paleontologist who is an acknowledged expert on Cambrian fossils visited the United States to lecture� “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin�. It applies in Canada. I wanted to know the author of that quote but alas his name is not cited, making me concerned the quote is an academic myth in itself.
My beef is that evolutionary theory purports to be science. It is a shame for me because I believe in the objectivity of science and it is not present in evolutionary discussions. It constitutes scientific misconduct (to paraphrase page 233) where a breach of candour is deception. Wells, the author, notes that Darwin finches increased 5% in beak size during a severe drought. A scientific booklet claims that if such droughts occurred every ten years then a new species of finch might arise in 200 years (page 234), where the authors of the booklet omitted that average beak size returned after the drought ended. Then the paragraph concludes with noting Professor E. Johnson called this ‘sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail�.
Near the bottom of that page (234) Wells mentions “…dogmatic promoters of Darwinism did not see themselves as deceiving. (Do stock promoters?) Yet they seriously distorted the evidence � often knowingly. If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientist does it?� and onto the top of page 235 “…some dogmatic Darwinists have exploited their evocative power to a degree that would make demagogues and advertising executives blush. This is not what we have been led to expect from scientists.”� This is my sentiment.
As is my outlook that “…the present Darwinian establishment and its distortions of the truth� (page 240) should not be entitled to promote their belief system with our money, unless perhaps part of a religious studies syllabus comparing belief systems.
The book looks at ten ‘myths� presented in ten textbooks. I can’t speak for how prevalent those texts were in use but they are listed in the Appendix on pages 249-250. I am familiar with some of their (mis) usages. It begins with the Miller-Urey Experiment, trying to recreate early conditions on earth that might have given rise to simple amino acids. Yes the experiment has been questioned but Wells point is that its use was still presented in textbooks.
Regarding Darwin’s Tree of Life: It has been so difficult to show that one lifeform led to another (there is no common ancestor, anywhere, even dogs are no longer considered descendants of wolves, but rather cousins) that clades are now in prevalent use at the university level but the tree of life still gets posited in high school texts. DNA is now preferred to classify animals rather than morphological traits. As soon as DNA (a molecular code) was discovered, evolutionists should have been hollering ‘all bets are off� there is something going on and its not random mutation. Mutation might explain an occasional deviant gene such as sickle cell anemia but in no way can account for the light speed pedalling needed to explicate one intricate new gene never mind the hundreds of thousand (millions) that exist. It’s like saying if enough people play Super Mario Brothers game enough times it will become SuperMario II. Who believes that? Then why do they believe evolutionary theory has validity?
A concern I had from decades ago, when they didn’t know how many types of bacteria there were, only 200 were mentioned. That struck me as odd, the simplest of lifeforms having the least amount of diversity. If evolutionary theory was valid then it should have the most. That didn’t seem to bother the authors of the text of the biologists at the time. You would think they might have at least noted “Although there are only a few hundred known species of bacteria it is probably because not many biologists are pursuing investigation� rather than accepting it as fact and not commenting how odd that was.
Or take the “evolution of the eye� � evolutionists say it (a major sophisticated organ development) happened 43 independent times (one reference said 1500 times) yet these same group of scientists say blue eyes only came about once. If someone has blue eyes, they claim, it is only because it is inherited. Isn’t having blue eyes a more likelihood event by mutation than devising an eye in the first place (never mind multiple times)?
Peppered moths, light colored or dark colored? Wells� concern was showing the moths on tree trunks when they didn’t alight there. Frequency of appearance of the two types certainly supports lower level natural selection at work. When environmental conditions changed the frequency changed; the genes were still there to select from. Yet no green (or other colour) peppered moths appeared (evolved). Wouldn’t green be a good camouflage for hiding in trees?
My favourite icon is the Cambrian explosion. There is no precedent. Whamo � out of virtually nowhere many different phyla appear. This was not mutation generated; this was something else. As long as we are ‘stuck� with creationism and evolutionary theory as postulates hindering inquiring minds, we have an undiscovered area to explore.
April 7, 2014
I'm afraid Mr Wells did very little research for this book, which is quite ironic, considering that he himself is guilty of that which he accuses evolutionists of.
A lot of people talk about Ernst Haeckel’s drawing and claim that they were all fabricated and this proves that there is no evidence for evolution because it is all fake. After all, this is why he was charged with fraud, right?
Ernst Haeckel wasn’t actually charged with fraud. This is just an urban myth with no independently verifiable sources to confirm it.
“Ernst Haeckel and the Struggles over Evolution and Religion" Robert J. Richards Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 10 (2005): 89�115
His drawings of embryological development are actually more legitimate than many opponents of evolution would like to admit. While some mistakes were made, there were not nearly as many of them as some people claim. Unfortunately it was the inaccurate drawings that were widely used for some time, but this mistake has long since been rectified, and any textbooks today use the accurate pictures.
"While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are more tenditious", Richardson and Keuck "Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development", Biol. Rev. (2002), 77, pp. 495�528. Quoted from p. 495.
A lot of people talk about Ernst Haeckel’s drawing and claim that they were all fabricated and this proves that there is no evidence for evolution because it is all fake. After all, this is why he was charged with fraud, right?
Ernst Haeckel wasn’t actually charged with fraud. This is just an urban myth with no independently verifiable sources to confirm it.
“Ernst Haeckel and the Struggles over Evolution and Religion" Robert J. Richards Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 10 (2005): 89�115
His drawings of embryological development are actually more legitimate than many opponents of evolution would like to admit. While some mistakes were made, there were not nearly as many of them as some people claim. Unfortunately it was the inaccurate drawings that were widely used for some time, but this mistake has long since been rectified, and any textbooks today use the accurate pictures.
"While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are more tenditious", Richardson and Keuck "Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development", Biol. Rev. (2002), 77, pp. 495�528. Quoted from p. 495.
March 17, 2017
كتاب قيم جدا , اذا كنت ستقرأ الكتاب بوضع الفارس المدافع عن ما تؤمن به فلا تقرأه , لن تستفيد شيئا , الرجل لم يحاول ان يعطك فلسفة او مبدأ اخلاقى او وجودى كما باقى كتب هذه المواضيع , لكنه فقط اوضح بشكل ممتاز و سلس الاعتراضات على ايقونات التطور او الداورينية , و كشف اخطاء و خداع الكثير من المراجع و العلماء المتعصبين للنظرية فى الغرب و امريكا خصوصا , و بالطبع خرج المتعصبون لا ليردوا على ما قدمه من احتجاجات و لكن ليقولوا انه اساء الفهم او اساء نقل كلامهم على الرغم من استشهاد الرجل بنصوص مدونة و يسهل الرجوع اليها , على العموم اذا كنت ستقرأه بنظرية المحايد المستمتع فستجد نفسك مرغما على قراءة المزيد فى الموضوع و ربما للجانب الاخر لترى تفنيدا لهذه الاعتراضات او ان كان ويلز محقا فيها .
Read
July 25, 2011Clearly written book on a touchy subject. I like that Wells doesn't dwell on his religious convictions but helps separate philosophy from science and reveals clear lack of discipline in some who claim to use scientific methods. His best corrective proposal was warning labels on textbooks that promote a popular theory with a tenuous foundation. A great read for parents or grandparents of school age children.
March 4, 2011
A little more polemic than I had hoped. However, he certainly proves his point that the evidence behind evolutionary theory is much more controversial and uneven than generally portrayed. It's amazing how often the facts are bent to fit a theory rather than the other way around. The implications for climate science ought to worry people.
August 3, 2021
I found this to be an excellent book, because of it's content. Each chapter showed the problems with each of these Icons of Evolution, so-called. Each one has a great flaw and cannot be considered an icon for the evolutionary process, each is either fraudulent or a blatant lie, or just a religious belief and faith without the truth to back it up. Well worth it to read, especially if you have children in school.
August 23, 2016
من أكثر النظريات التي تدعى "بالعلمية" تجعلك تنفر منها تلقائيا وتتعجب من إصرار من يتبناها عليها؟!
ما الذي يجعلك تتتعمد الحط من الإنسان؟!
ما الذي يجعلك لا تتبنى فقط التطور ولكن تزيد عليها أنه غير موجه وأن الإنسان أتى بالصدفة لاهدف لوجوده فهو والقرد "أولاد عم"؟
هل الذي يجعلهم يتبنونها هو الدليل الحاسم القاطع على التطور؟!
تكتشف أنه ليس هناك دليل حاسم ولا أصلا أي شئ يجعلك تصفه بكلمة دليل.
إذن ما الذي جعلهم يتبنونها بشكل مبالغ فيه لدرجة أن يقول عالم أحافير صيني:"يمكن لنا أن ننتقد داروين في الصين وليس الحكومة، أما في أمريكا فيمكن أن تنتقد الحوكة وليس داروين"
الذي يجعلهم يتبنونها ظاهريا هو الأدلة والذي يظهر لك هذا الكتاب وغيره أنها مجرد أيقونات تم تقديسها وإخضاع المرأي لما يعتقد وليس العكس أو كما هو مفترض في العلم التجريبي.
ما جعلهم يتبنونها وما أجزم به هو الإعتقادات الفلسفية التي تخدمها هذه النظرية وليس لأن النظرية صحيحة فهي تخدم المادية تخدم الصدفة تخدم عدم غائية الإنسان وهذ يزيل الحمل كثيرا من على الأكتاف ورغم أن إشد المؤمنيني بالنظرية لاي تقبل بكل فلسفات النظرية ولكن طالما تخدم ندفهم الأساسي فلا بأس.
خلاصة السبب الدافع لإيمانهم به هو ما قاله دوكنز:"أتاح داروين الإمكانبية لأن تكون ملحدا مكتملا عقلانيا"
زعم ذلك ... فهاتان الكلمتان لا تجتمعان أبدا "ملحد" و "مكتمل عقلانيا".
رغم يقيني بزوال هذه النظرية "فأما الزبد فيذهب جفاءا" لكن سيظل كم التزييف والتوظيف الذي حطث بها وصمة في تاريخ العلم التجريبي
رغم أن نقادها كثر ومبيني زيفها كذلك إلا أن القليل يظهر ذلك ..يقول المؤلف جوناثان ويلز:فسألت إذاً لماذا لا يقولون ذلك علنا؟
أجاب المشارك:هذا سيقلل فرصهم في تلقي المال.
ما الذي يجعلك تتتعمد الحط من الإنسان؟!
ما الذي يجعلك لا تتبنى فقط التطور ولكن تزيد عليها أنه غير موجه وأن الإنسان أتى بالصدفة لاهدف لوجوده فهو والقرد "أولاد عم"؟
هل الذي يجعلهم يتبنونها هو الدليل الحاسم القاطع على التطور؟!
تكتشف أنه ليس هناك دليل حاسم ولا أصلا أي شئ يجعلك تصفه بكلمة دليل.
إذن ما الذي جعلهم يتبنونها بشكل مبالغ فيه لدرجة أن يقول عالم أحافير صيني:"يمكن لنا أن ننتقد داروين في الصين وليس الحكومة، أما في أمريكا فيمكن أن تنتقد الحوكة وليس داروين"
الذي يجعلهم يتبنونها ظاهريا هو الأدلة والذي يظهر لك هذا الكتاب وغيره أنها مجرد أيقونات تم تقديسها وإخضاع المرأي لما يعتقد وليس العكس أو كما هو مفترض في العلم التجريبي.
ما جعلهم يتبنونها وما أجزم به هو الإعتقادات الفلسفية التي تخدمها هذه النظرية وليس لأن النظرية صحيحة فهي تخدم المادية تخدم الصدفة تخدم عدم غائية الإنسان وهذ يزيل الحمل كثيرا من على الأكتاف ورغم أن إشد المؤمنيني بالنظرية لاي تقبل بكل فلسفات النظرية ولكن طالما تخدم ندفهم الأساسي فلا بأس.
خلاصة السبب الدافع لإيمانهم به هو ما قاله دوكنز:"أتاح داروين الإمكانبية لأن تكون ملحدا مكتملا عقلانيا"
زعم ذلك ... فهاتان الكلمتان لا تجتمعان أبدا "ملحد" و "مكتمل عقلانيا".
رغم يقيني بزوال هذه النظرية "فأما الزبد فيذهب جفاءا" لكن سيظل كم التزييف والتوظيف الذي حطث بها وصمة في تاريخ العلم التجريبي
رغم أن نقادها كثر ومبيني زيفها كذلك إلا أن القليل يظهر ذلك ..يقول المؤلف جوناثان ويلز:فسألت إذاً لماذا لا يقولون ذلك علنا؟
أجاب المشارك:هذا سيقلل فرصهم في تلقي المال.
April 19, 2013
Icons of Evolution: I thought the subjects of evolution that Wells brought up were very good points. In the sense that a lot of high schools teach evolution without fully answering every question. It is kind of like a given and it you question it you're kind of looked down upon.
The parts that interested me the most about the icons of evolution is how they all are half truths. Such as the four winged fly, they modified it so much that its extra pair of wings actually make it a lot harder for it to live. The first two original wings are much weaker and had a really hard time flying. Or when Wells talks about the Miller Urey Experiment, as it might be functional into creating life on earth. Essentially the gases used for the experiment were not the gases that the early earth had. Disproving the Miller Urey Experiment.
But I have also heard that Jonathan Wells was a very biased writer. Some of the information might be true, or some might not. But what this ended up showing me is that we will never know, fully, the origins of the early earth.
Regardless I thought this book was still really interesting, I would recommend anyone this book fully warned that this book is biased as well.
The parts that interested me the most about the icons of evolution is how they all are half truths. Such as the four winged fly, they modified it so much that its extra pair of wings actually make it a lot harder for it to live. The first two original wings are much weaker and had a really hard time flying. Or when Wells talks about the Miller Urey Experiment, as it might be functional into creating life on earth. Essentially the gases used for the experiment were not the gases that the early earth had. Disproving the Miller Urey Experiment.
But I have also heard that Jonathan Wells was a very biased writer. Some of the information might be true, or some might not. But what this ended up showing me is that we will never know, fully, the origins of the early earth.
Regardless I thought this book was still really interesting, I would recommend anyone this book fully warned that this book is biased as well.
February 1, 2016
كتاب ايقونات التطور علم ام خرافة " هو احد الكتب التي اصدرها مركز براهين العام الماضي لمواجهة المد الدرويني الذي بدأ ينتشر في بلداننا العربية ومحاولة منهم لتعريف القارئ العربي على وجهة نظر الطرف المعارض للتطور الدرويني , لذلك تبنى المركز ترجمة العديد من الكتب في هذا الصدد منها هذا الكتاب
بالنسبة لمضمون الكتاب فهو مفيد لاشك ويستخدم اسلوبا علميا صرفا فى دحض التطور الدرويني ولكن لغة الكتاب والمصطلحات العلمية فيه تحتاج لمعرفة مسبقة بعلم الاحياء _على الرغم من وضوح الترجمة وجودتها _ ويؤسفيني انني لم اخرج بحصيلة
كبيرة من المعلومات وان كنت فهمت معظم الحجج التي ساقها المؤلف ضد انصار التطور الدرويني , طبعا كتاب كهذا ليس في وسعي كتابة تقييم عنه ولكن
يمكنني القول ان افضل المواضيع التي اثارت اهتمامي في الكتاب هي (شجرة دراوين _والاركيبوتركس- ومن القرد الى الانسان )
بالنسبة لمضمون الكتاب فهو مفيد لاشك ويستخدم اسلوبا علميا صرفا فى دحض التطور الدرويني ولكن لغة الكتاب والمصطلحات العلمية فيه تحتاج لمعرفة مسبقة بعلم الاحياء _على الرغم من وضوح الترجمة وجودتها _ ويؤسفيني انني لم اخرج بحصيلة
كبيرة من المعلومات وان كنت فهمت معظم الحجج التي ساقها المؤلف ضد انصار التطور الدرويني , طبعا كتاب كهذا ليس في وسعي كتابة تقييم عنه ولكن
يمكنني القول ان افضل المواضيع التي اثارت اهتمامي في الكتاب هي (شجرة دراوين _والاركيبوتركس- ومن القرد الى الانسان )
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.