[Vision2020] Icons of Evolution is Fraudulent Science

[Pat Kraut]

Nick I didn't expect you to approve! I just said I found it
enlightning...take it any way you want to as I knew you would.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nickgier at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Icons of Evolution is Fraudulent Science


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.

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================