Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong [Paperback]

Jonathan Wells (Author), Jody F. Sjogren (Illustrator)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 2002

Everything you were taught about evolution is wrong.

Product Details

• Paperback: 338 pages
• Publisher: Regnery Publishing; First Edition,First Trade Paper Edition edition (January 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0895262002
• ISBN-13: 978-0895262004
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1 x 9.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (211 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #208,294 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

I have two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley (1994), and one in Religious Studies from Yale University (1986). After finishing my Berkeley Ph.D. I taught embryology at California State University in Hayward, did post-doctoral research at Berkeley, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. In 1998 I moved with my family to Seattle, where I am now a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

I have published scientific articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. I am also author of Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000). I am now working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on DNA in biology and medicine.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

133 of 172 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars An intriguing book that deserves a fair hearing... July 13, 2002

By Erasmus

Format:Hardcover

Wells has written a fascinating book about how biology textbooks use outdated evidence for evolution that modern evolutionary biologists no longer accept. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wells' overall point, his book is carefully argued and thoroughly documented by references to the primary scientific literature, and it deserves a serious look by anyone interested in contemporary debates over evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, many of the published criticisms of Wells' book seem to rely on ad hominem attacks or straw-man arguments. Some of the reviewers don't even seem to have read the book. For example, one reviewer asserts that according to Wells peppered moths "never" rest on tree trunks. But Wells does NOT make this claim in the book (and he doesn't use the word "never"). Wells' claim is only that such moths RARELY rest on tree trunks, a conclusion that he amply supports from the relevant scientific literature. This more nuanced claim still undermines the standard textbook use of the peppered moth story. By the way, Wells' critique of the peppered moth story is fully corroborated in Judith Hooper's new book, Of Moths and Men, which goes into great detail about problems with the original moth experiments. It is interesting to note that after Wells' book came out, new editions of certain biology textbooks removed both the peppered moth story and Haeckel's fudged embryo drawings. Don't allow Wells' critics to poison the well by misstating Wells' arguments. Read the book for yourself and make up your own mind.

96 of 132 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Very angry after reading this book. November 29, 2000

By Bradley

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

Until recently I was solidly in the Darwinist camp, and I couldn't even imagine what could ever change my mind. I was raised with a Darwinistic world view. As an undergraduate, I took a science major where the rules of science were emphasized and I was privileged to attend lectures where one of the greatest living scientists explained to our philosophy department how science works.

Recently however, I read Johnson's Wedge of truth, and Well's Icons of Evolution. I was outraged to read about the thin evidence, sloppy evidence and yes, even outright fraud that are presented by Darwinists as the pillars of Darwinsim. I feel a great sense of betrayal that these case studies were presented to me as fact when in one instance the fraud has been known for generations. At best what Wells presents is negligence on the part of text book writers, at worst it is the widespread systematic suppression of dissenting opinions. ...

50 of 68 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Does YOUR textbook carry a health warning? It should. March 22, 2006

By Diogeneze

Format:Paperback

Firstly I have to confess [ ;-) ] that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Wells' book.
It is, as previous reviewers have noted, very clearly written so as to be accessible to a wide range of readers, whether they are knowledgeable in scientific matters, or not.

What some previous reviewers seem to have overlooked is the book's subtitle: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Which means that whilst Wells is dealing with topics central to the discussion of evolution in general, his book approaches the subjects specifically with a view as to how they are presented in popular textbooks used in US schools, colleges and universities.

This inevitably means that from time to time he is dealing with claims and statements which many evolutionary scientists already know are wrong and would not repeat in their own work.

It is also important to note Wells' disclaimer in the Preface where he lists a number of people who assisted him in regard to the technical details in the book. At the end of the list Wells clearly states:

"Listing these people does not imply that they endorse my views. On the contrary, many of them will disagree with my conclusions and recommendations. But for these fine people, science is the search for truth, and I am indebted to them for helping me to get the facts straight."

In other words, he has done his best to fairly and accurately present the facts he is discussing, whilst honestly acknowledging that the experts who helped him in that task do not necessarily share the conclusions he (Wells) draws from those facts.
Seems pretty honest and straight forward to me - a quality all too often missing from this debate. On both sides of the fence.

And what about these "facts"?

One earlier reviewer recommends reading the response to Wells' book by Alan Gishlick of the NCSE. So I did some checking, and on the first page I looked at found this strange objection to Wells' comments on homology:

"Wells claims that homology is used in a circular fashion by biologists because textbooks define homology as similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and then state that homology is evidence for common ancestry. Wells is correct: this simplified reading of homology is indeed circular. But Wells oversimplifies a complex system into absurdity instead of trying to explain it properly."

Gishlick then goes on to say (a few paragraphs later):

"However, in our post-Darwin period, biologists define a homologous structure as an anatomical, developmental, behavioral, or genetic feature shared between two different organisms because they inherited it from a common ancestor."

Now this is indeed part of a lengthy explanation, but unless I've stopped being able to understand the English language, Gishlick is actually demonstrating the correctness of Wells' analysis of the way homology is used in evolutionary science - with the key presupposition that apparently homologous features in separate species or whatever must be due to descent from a common ancestor, somewhere along the line, and that therefore homology (be it morphological, genetic, or whatever) somehow demonstrates descent from a common ancestor.

(This "rebuttal" is also a demonstration of the "best fit" fallacy: This explanation must be right because I/we think it offers the best explanation of the evidence.)

Likewise, having already studied the subject in some detail, I can concur with Wells' comments on the "peppered moth" fiasco - except his conclusion.

If there is one shortcoming in Wells' view of evolution that is evident almost from the start of the book, it is his failure to understand just how trivial the current definition of "evolution" is amongst evolutionists.
According to Douglas Futuyma, whom Wells actually quotes in a couple of places, "evolution" is simply "change", and "biological evolution" is simply "inheritable change".

From that utterly simplistic perspective the case of the peppered moths IS an example of genuine evolution, for the simple reason that there were different ratios of "melanic" and "typical" individuals in the population at different times!

So, to finish where I started, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the evolution debate - as long as their brain has not "ossified".
For those who oppose evolution, it may hopefully demonstrate that its OK to start collecting genuinely scientific information for themselves, rather than just repeating the tired old arguments from generations ago.
For those who support the notion of evolution this will hopefully be a wake-up call to start insisting that textbook authors mend their ways and begin dealing in plain, accurate scientific facts instead of resorting to misinformation and even blatant untruths on the pretext that they don't want to confuse their student readers. (How patronising and mendacious is THAT!)