[Vision2020] Icons of Evolution is Fraudulent Science

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greettings:

Just a few minutes of googling reveals what a fraud Jonathan Wells is.  One can excuse those ignorant of science for believing that creationism is science, but there is only one thing to say about those who should know better: they are intellectually dishonest.

Creationist Jonathan Wells, an intelligent-design advocate affiliated with the Discovery Institute, has written a book entitled Icons of Evolution, which states that some of the best-known evidences for evolution -- such as the peppered moths, the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment, and the finches of the Galápagos islands -- are false, fraudulent or misrepresented in college-level textbooks. Articles found here refute Wells' book and demonstrate that the traditional, mainstream-science-supporting interpretations of these "icons" are correct. 

Icon of Obfuscation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
Nick Matzke's long and comprehensive article lists Wells' "icons" and refutes his claims one by one, showing how in each case it is Wells who has promoted deceptive interpretations of these famous evidences for evolution. 
 
Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html
This article examines one of Wells' "icons" -- the finch species of the Galápagos islands -- in greater detail, showing how Wells' claims about them do not stand up to scrutiny. 
 
Wells and Haeckel's Embryos http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
A biologist reviews the embryology "icon" in detail and shows that contrary to Wells that embryos are evidence for evolution. 
 
Icons of Anti-Evolution  http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm
Another presentation of the problems of Dr. Wells' book.
Icons of Evolution?  http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/

Alan D. Gishlick's detailed and illustrated debunking for the National Center for Science Education.


According to Wells, the "icons" are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's tree of life, the homology of the vertebrate limbs, Haeckel's embryos, Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, and "Darwin's" finches. (Although he discusses three other "icons" -- four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution -- he does not evaluate textbooks' treatments of them.) Wells is right about at least one thing: these seven examples do appear in nearly all biology textbooks. Yet no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution, as Wells implies. The "icons" that Wells singles out are discussed in different parts of the textbooks for different pedagogical reasons. The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life." 

Likewise, Darwin's finches are used as examples of an evolutionary process (natural selection), not as evidence for evolution. Archaeopteryx is frequently presented in discussions of the origin of birds, not as evidence for evolution itself. Finally, textbooks do not present a single "tree of life"; rather, they present numerous topic-specific phylogenetic trees to show how relevant organisms are related. Wells's entire discussion assumes that the evidence for evolution is a list of facts stored somewhere, rather than the predictive value of the theory in explaining the patterns of the past and present biological world.