Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(91)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

Wells has written a fascinating book about how biology textbooks use outdated evidence for evolution that modern evolutionary biologists no longer accept.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.

In Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells explores a handful of classical examples used in introductory biology textbooks that illustrate aspects of evolution, textbooks generally aimed at the high school level. These "icons" are primarily attacked on the basis that they are inaccurate, leaving out important details, or downright false; however, these critiques are based primarily on appeals to authority and Wells does little to address the abundance of research beyond these iconic examples. Many of his characterizations of the primary scientific literature are also questionable. In general, he seems to over state the importance and implications of his icons to erect a straw man which he can easily attack.

The manner in which Wells addresses some of the icons seems especially misguided. His discussion of molecular clocks and Darwin's "Tree of Life" centers almost completely on isolated problems/disagreements and raises the specter of the Cambrian "explosion" where questions undoubtedly remain; however, little thought is given to the successes and positive contributions of these molecular techniques and the numerous parallel lines of evidence that support the tree of life. He paints an utterly pessimistic picture of molecular phylogenetics, likely leaving most readers with the perception that the methodology is flawed and in a crisis and that the data produced is wholly invalid. In reality, quite the contrary is true; phylogenies based on molecular data are becoming increasingly valuable and typically agree with phylogenies based on other data sets (such as fossils or morphology.) The evidence in support of common descent, however, is far deeper than Wells' cursory critiques address. When one wades into the true wealth of evidence and looks at the genetic similarities between species despite protein and DNA redundancy, identical insertion locations of endogenous retroviruses, and shared transposons, introns, and pseudogenes (the L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene is my personal favorite), it becomes clear that Icons of Evolution plays in the shallow wading pool of science and rarely dips its feet into the deeper "big-kids" pool. What is truly significant about these other lines of data is their congruency without exception; we do not see homologous pseudogenes or retroviral insertions where not predicted by common descent. While it is certainly true that grey areas remain and there are numerous unanswered questions, in order for Wells to truly advance his thesis that the iconic "Tree of Life" is unsubstantiated, as well as his other icons, he must address these independent lines of evidence and not just focus on superficial uncertainties.

The "Tree of Life" is but one of the "icons" explored in this book and many others are equally disingenuous. Haeckel's embryos are perhaps one of the better known icons. It is true that Haeckel fudged his drawings to show that animal embryos appeared more similar than they really were and his Biogenetic law was wrong. Wells does not stop his criticism there, though; he goes on to equate Haeckel's dishonest drawings and discredited theory with evolution in general. He spends most of the chapter obfuscating the matter further without ever addressing the reality of the issue: vertebrate embryos really are similar. This is exemplified by the fact that many textbooks now use photographs to compare embryological development. Furthermore, Wells' contentions with the Galapagos finches and peppered moth examples seem obtuse. The changes seen in these animals was not mere acclimation, such as sheep growing thicker wool in colder climates or humans adjusting to lower oxygen concentrations at high altitudes; what was observed in these cases was a change in the frequencies of discrete genetic traits, the evolutionary consequences of natural selection. Essentially, we can document the development of new genes and functions, witness changes in populations as they adapt to their environment, and find closely related species that seem to have arisen through gradual change, but Wells refuses to put the pieces together, maintaining that each step is isolated and not evolution. While neither of Wells' "icons" ideally exhibits every nuance of speciation, it must be remembered that they are used in the context of introductory textbooks. Many other examples can be found that perhaps elucidate different stages of evolution better (e.g., the nylonase enzyme, pentachlorophenol (PCP) metabolism, ring-species) but few would be appropriate for this level of science and would likely complicate the matter needlessly. The subtitle of this book (Why Much of What We Teach...) is quite significant to the conclusions that one draws from the content; if one approaches this text as addressing pedagogy and not the legitimacy of evolution, it can be quite insightful. However, this book does an abysmal job of critiquing the legitimacy of the Theory of Evolution as a whole.

Icons of Evolution is very well written and an easy read, echoing the comments of many others. Although inaccurate at times, it provides an insight into many of the arguments and areas of contention that Intelligent Design advocates have with evolution and serves as a good primer to the debate occurring in contemporary society. However, like any other isolated book, Icons of Evolution should not be considered authoritative. For anyone truly interested in this topic, I encourage you to read a variety of sources and authors, search databases for relevant research papers, and look into the primary scientific literature that authors cite. There is a wealth of information available for those wishing to remain intellectually honest.

I must admit that reading this book was somewhat shocking. I had expected to see rehashed creationist arguments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. On the contrary, nothing Wells says depends on creationist ideas. He has collected evidence from the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and combined them into a compelling case against what we might call "textbook Darwinism." This might be a trivial accomplishment, since the record of high school and college textbooks is generally dismal. But his cumulative argument seems to me devastating to orthodox Neo-Darwinism, since it just is textbook Darwinism. Wells discusses the famous comparative vertebrate embryo diagrams-- which should be an embarrassment to any textbook author who includes them--the fallacious way homology is used for evidence of common ancestry, the collapse of the story of Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, and many more pieces of the Darwinist lore. By the time I was finished, I had lost faith in almost everything I thought I knew about evolution. I now suspect that Darwin will soon join company with Marx and Freud.

I'm not sure what I believe at this point, but I can no longer buy the official story. I don't know if I agree with some of Wells' recommendations in his conclusion, but something clearly has to be done. Hysterical defenses of falsified "evidence" by Darwinian disciples at Talk.Origins and elsewhere convinces me that they didn't see this coming, and won't be able to deal with the actual facts involved.

How would you react if told that you and your children have been lied to in science lessons at school and university? Yet this is exactly what has been happening for decades, as `Icons of Evolution' demonstrates.

The author, a Berkeley Ph.D in Biology, is not a creationist, but his book describes many serious misrepresentations of facts commonly found in biology textbooks, which are used to perpetuate belief in evolution. The main part of the book describes ten of these `icons', devoting one chapter to each, and shows what is wrong with them in the light of published scientific evidence. The chapters are all fairly brief, and each is divided into short sections, to make the material easier to assimilate. The author's thesis is amply documented with 71 pages of research notes at the end of the book.

The lie is not always, or even usually, on the teacher's part, since many teachers are ignorant of the facts concerning these `icons'. They simply pass on what they themselves have been taught at school and university.

A particularly embarrassing yet persistant icon is Haeckel's `biogenetic law'. Embryologists have known about Haeckel's faked embryo drawings for many decades, and some evolutionists have long since dropped this icon from their repertoire, though they usually downplay the fraudulent aspect, and some still try to make residual capital out of the idea. But Douglas Futuyma used Haeckel's drawings uncritically in an advanced text, `Evolutionary Biology', 1998. When a critic accused him of lying, Futuyma posted a message to an internet forum explaining that he had been unaware of the discrepancies between Haeckel's drawings, and actual vertebrate embryos. Even then he still insisted that "all the vertebrate embryos ... really do have gill slits" (even emphasising the words `really do'). Yet it is a well documented fact that the pharyngeal pouches in mammalian embryos are not gills and do not have perforations.

It's bad enough for a professor in the Dept. of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York to be so ignorant of the facts, but Wells let him off too lightly. You see, Futuyma published another book (`Science on Trial', 1983, 1995) which contains a damning critique of creation science, and which has been given a 5-star rating by his anti-creation admirers. This raises an intriguing question. Did Futuyma read any of the works by creation scientists as part of his research for `Science on Trial'? If he did, then he could not have failed to learn about Haeckel's fraud, and therefore was himself guilty of fraud in `Evolutionary Biology'. If he didn't, then he wrote his damning critique of creation science with no first-hand knowledge of what he was criticising! If I were one of those reviewers who uncritically gave it a 5-star rating, I'd be awfully embarrassed!

What is the reason behind this widespread misrepresentation? One reason is simply corporate ignorance. But there is another, more disturbing reason. Among evolutionists, there is a hard core who are passionately devoted to a materialistic ideology, and are quite prepared to use dishonest means to further that ideology.

"Apparently, dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution fear that without these icons public faith in their claims will disappear, so they knowingly misinform our children and suppress scientific evidence."

Regardless of your preconceived ideas, this book will be an eye-opener. Wells does an incredible job of making this topic thorough, readable, and fascinating. Whatever side you are on, evolution, creation, or intelligent design, this book will enhance your knowledge of the issue. This book is well-researched, well-written, and hard to put down. I found the attacks on this book rather amusing, as if the reviewers were desperate to put down Wells and attempt to keep people from reading this book. Don't fall for it---find out for yourself. I am a science teacher, and am in no way connected with the Discovery Institute.

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!)

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. ...

Finally, a book that puts the facts where my suspicions have been for years. Dr. Wells presents a well organized and logical argument that takes Darwinian evolution out of the fact category and back into the theory category where it belongs. Too many biologists today accept without question long discredited ideas and "evidence" that supports undirected evolution. This is mostly because, through the use of inaccurate textbooks, evolution is taught in high schools and then to undergraduate biology students as fact, not the speculation it really is. Although these students may enter the field of biology, most do not use Darwinian theories in their every day practical lives. Once out of school, they believe the "fact" of evolution, as I did, and have no reason or opportunity to question its failed tenants. Dr. Wells describes with precision specific facts that demonstrate that the jury is still way out when it comes to accepting evolution as fact, or even a plausible theory.

Several critics ...take Dr. Wells to task, often with uncalled for blistering personal attacks. With apologies to William Shakespeare, The Darwinists doth protest too much, methinks. As Dr. Wells states, many Darwinian Evolutionists have taken up the cause as a form of secular religion. If a fellow biologist, no matter how qualified, questions the fact of evolution, he has committed an unpardonable heresy. If Darwinists had their way about it, he would likely be punished by banishment from the profession, if not worse. ...

As a wildlife biologist who for 30 years has dealt with environmental issues such as endangered species and wetlands, I know the scientific community is not as pure in the scientific method as they claim. Science is supposed to consider facts without bias. Valid conclusions resulting from unfettered research should be accepted for what it is, even if it contravenes widely accepted theories. Those of us who have made science our profession know this is not always the case. Sadly, too many researchers establish a conclusion then look for an argument to support it. Some are not above "fudging a little" to support their thesis. These pseudo scientists believe that, in the interest of the "bigger picture", the ends justifies the means. When this happens, we stray from the realm of science and blunder into the land of politics. Dr. Wells brilliantly exposes this truism in the field of Darwinian evolution.

... If anything, you should buy this book if only in the interest of free speech. (By the way, I am not affiliated with this organization in any way, have never met Dr. Wells, and this book is the first I have ever read of his or of the Institute.)

I purchased this book in some trepidation, not certain whether the writing would tackle with an honest eye the real difficulties involved in being a neo-Darwinist. I carefully read through the reviews here, and was struck by the number of people who reviewed, not the book, but WHAT THEY THOUGHT JONATHAN WELLS STOOD FOR.

This is neither honest or intelligent. If one has no intention of actually reading a book, one has no business reviewing it. Granted, it means that one is restricted to reviewing only those books one wishes to read or has no way to avoid reading, but the fact remains that a critic's first duty is to examine that which he assesses or discusses.

Firstly, my few feelings of disappointment - I can see this book was aimed at the general public rather than those who, like me, maintain a professional interest in various fields of what is called science. I'd have preferred a much more detailed and technical discussion that delved into a professional look at what is happening now with regard to some of the topics covered and which are being published in professional journals this year, but I do candidly admit that for the layman, this book is perfectly adequate. It is for this reason that I have not given this book four stars instead of five. The very real flaws outlined by Dr Wells are his focus, and he focuses upon it with courtesy and a clear-eyed look at the so-called genuineness of what is taught as unassailable.

My areas of expertise are biochemistry and physics, and I maintain a certain degree of interest in various streams of biology. I consider I have need of more in the more abstruse levels of mathematics - which is wonderful in that I have a lifetime in which to pursue knowledge! I am also by profession an opera singer, which is perfectly explicable to me. Music is strongly mathematical in its technical aspects, although of course there is a great deal more required of a singer than a mere understanding of the symbols.

I say all of this simply to clarify my position on the subject of scientific knowledge and a scientific approach: it is simply not possible to be scientific and to pre-judge before one examines the raw data. That is integrally ludicrous. Therefore it has long seemed odd to me, from my first biology tutorial while studying for my B.Sc. onwards, that those within the scientific community, working within it and reading within it and studying within it, can be so uncritical of unsubstantiated claims, so accepting of dogma, and so unable to insist upon the fields of science requiring adherence to the definition of science.

That textbooks in biology are riddled with inaccuracies is simply, I'm afraid, undeniable. It is embarrassing for scientists to do such disservice to the truth of which we must proclaim ourselves ambassadors as to avoid dealing with the severe problems highlighted by this book.

I am not American. What seems to me quite a virulent war between two factions in the States has overtones that I frankly don't understand. However, it's true that in Australia there is an undeniable pressure to conform to a BELIEF in evolutionary theory even in the lack of a plausible mechanism for macro-evolution.

It's indescribably worrying to see people writing reviews of this book without having read it - for they write reviews that reveal this lack.

This is a balanced, readable and very thoughtful book. It is neither insulting nor unresearched. It deals with the familiar icons presented again and again as evidence of Darwinism (specifically as neo-Darwinism), and details why these icons represent serious flaws. As the author asks, if better evidence is available that is not flawed or faked or in some other way lacking, then why is that evidence not presented to students? In all of the cosmogenic theories, laymen often fail to realise that they are reading, not data, but interpretations of data. (It's a pity, in a way, that Jonathan Wells did not dicuss these theories, but I must give him credit in not attempting to cover TOO much ground. Just enough, really. A good coverage.) In palæontology, laymen once again do not realise that they are presented with interpretations of data, not the data. Continued research into gene sequence, effects of genes upon structure, attempts to manipulate genetic coding, all of these things are extraordinarily exciting, but a fatal flaw continues to run like a dark thread through the published research papers and general "pop science" books published in these fields - that of presupposition. Again and again, in all of these fields, in biology, in every other related scientific field (and even in what I consider parascience or pseudoscientific fields), the general public AND the scientific community is presented en masse with suppositions, interpretations, guesswork, particular hypotheses... and never the controversy and inner conflict of the work, the actual raw data.

While the general public may need context and background in order to understand the significance of evidence, that is no excuse for giving pret-a-supporter "let's say it's so" defactos that are NOT facts... only beliefs.

I thank Dr Wells for his clearly-written and very enjoyable book. He has done a good job of writing with deep respect for the scientific approach.

I do suggest that reviewers actually read the book. Disagreeing with the substance of this book is like disagreeing with the history of Venice as written by noted historian John Julius Norwich, or claiming that the square root of four is actually three. Jonathan Wells is dealing with evidence that practising scientists within their own field know to be flawed. I could wish that all scientists did not permit specialisation to blinker them to problems in other fields, but I acknowledge the inherent difficulties.

For those who must believe in the theory of evolution, do so - but I can only agree with ideas about the universe that are based on facts, not preference. I hope that this book will at least drive its readers to research further and to delight in the wonders of the world around us, rather than to be huddled within a pre-formatted and dogmatic belief system that claims science as its god without practising the very tenets of a scientific approach it asserts.

"Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?" appears to be aimed toward the non-scientific public who are unlikely to check whether Jonathan Wells' proclamations are misleading. Some of Jonathan Wells' factual points are correct (i.e. Haeckel's old drawings are exaggerated, although not necessarily fraudulent). The effectiveness of these points in disproving Darwinian evolution, however, is grossly overstated. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. All you need to do is go to a university biology library, pick up a few recent journals and you will no doubt see several articles showing evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. Wells picks at a few stones at the base of this mountain of evidence, turns them over, and proclaims that the mountain cannot remain standing. As a research molecular biologist at UC Berkeley, I can say with some assurance that this book will not convince serious scientists that Darwinian evolution cannot remain standing. Instead, it raises doubts about the author.

Despite his Ph.D.s, Jonathan Wells seems not to understand how science is done. Scientists accept the principle of evolution because it is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. According to Dr. Wells, scientists should only accept evolution if it meets the higher and very impractical criteria of proof of beyond any doubt at all. This reminds me of the old Thomas Hume philosophical problem that it is impossible to prove that all swans are white. No matter how many swans you check, there could always be a non-white swan out there. Modern scientists would say that we have checked enough swans to say that swans are white. Dr. Wells says that not every swan has been checked. He also says that he has found a few brown fowl (which later turn out to be ducks). Therefore, according to Jonathan Wells, we cannot conclude anything about swan color.

Throughout his book, Jonathan Wells has the disturbing habit of blurring the line between scientific disagreements about the mechanisms of evolution (and there are many big disagreements about this in the wider scientific community) with scientific disagreements over whether evolution occurs at all. He also fails to explain how species do arise if evolution is not the mechanism of speciation. Wells does not bring it up directly in this book, but he and a cadre of contrarians are proponents of "Intelligent Design" (check out his articles at the Discovery Institute web site). Needless to say, the scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design" is scarce.

The twelfth chapter of Wells' book is the most disturbing of all and it is what compelled me to write this review. He denigrates many luminaries of biology from Ernst Mayr to Theodossy Dobzhansky. At best, Dr. Wells is patronizing and condescending to scientists who believe Darwinian evolution. At worst, he is slanderous. His insinuation that biologists who believe in evolution are either well-meaning, but uninformed, dupes or else out and out frauds is insulting. In this final chapter he also displays quite a bit of paranoia by describing a perceived plot to suppress disbelievers of Darwinian evolution. He also thinks Darwinian evolutionists are ripping off the government's money via scientific grants to further promulgate the Darwinian evolution theology. Readers will find these polemics disturbing.

This book could not convince scientists that Darwinian evolution does not occur. To do that, Dr. Wells needs evidence that will stand scrutiny. A recent check of the citation databases indicates that there are, to date, exactly zero publications in peer-reviewed science journals that present experimental evidence to support "Intelligent Design". This result is in comparison to the thousands of articles published in recent years that support evolution. Is it any wonder that most scientists believe in evolution? To turn Dr. Wells' own deliberate misconstruing of Dobzhansky's famous quote back on Dr. Wells himself, "Anti-evolution rhetoric makes no sense in light of scientific evidence."

I am under no illusion that many readers of this review will change their opinion about evolution. Nor should they. As a well-respected colleague of mine said recently, these sorts of forums are more like WWF wrestling matches than collegial forums for the exchange of ideas. My goal here is to make clear that the wider scientific community does not think that books such as "Icons of Evolution" prove anything about evolution. I suggest that readers who are looking to understand why most scientists believe in evolution should read widely from reliable sources. A sane and balanced place to start is the National Academy of Sciences web pages on evolution and creationism (look at Yahoo for the URL).