Customer Reviews

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

5 star:		(48)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(39)

 

 

First, my overall evaluation. The book is well-written, punchy, and has an edge. Wells make a plethora of strong arguments, overturns many of the most popular anti-ID talking points, but decidedly does not overturn what he calls "Darwinism."

Let me start the criticism with that term. It appears to have been chosen more to irritate the other side than because it most accurately describes his opponents. Darwin did not, after all, know about genetics -- as Wells makes clear -- or the supposed engine of innovation, random mutations. It would be like calling the General Theory of Relativity "Newtonism" -- both overly pejorative and underly accurate.

But my main criticism is that Well's argument against neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE, a better term) is not that strong. He allocated one chapter each to overturning the evidence from fossils and from genetics -- both mostly seemed like hand-waving, generalizations, and rank assertions, to me. He should at least have admitted that the general pattern of fossil evidence does show progression and development over four billion years. I don't think he even mentions the hominid record, or if he did, his mention was hard to notice as a speed sign in a poor town. All in all, on this subject Wells seemed to protest too much, and say too little.

The rest of the book was generally quite good, I thought. Wells deals with philosophical objections well. He shows that ID proponents are engaging in serious science. He demonstrates that there are a lot of very small-minded and virulent critics of ID on college campuses (if you've been around here, you might add Amazon), some of whom seem to have little room in their hearts for the concept of freedom of speech or a marketplace of ideas. (One star reviewers: get a clue, naming a man's religion does not refute his scientific arguments.) The book is extremely well-written and fun to listen to.

As a political or philosophical overview of ID, this book is worth reading. Wells is guilty of some hubris, though, and needs to double down on the scientific evidence and make concessions where needed, I think.

I was looking for an objective education from this book but what I found was an ill fated attempt to indoctrinate me into the Intelligent Design camp. I am not religious nor do I have an emotional investment in Darwin's Theory. I do however have a strong bent for objectivity in Science. To describe a theory as "Intelligent Design" and simultaneously deny it's fundamental need for an intelligent designer (God) seems absurd to me. How is a reader not supposed to think of I.D. as a fundamentally religious theory?

I am thus far convinced that without an Intelligent Designer (God) there is no Intelligent design theory. It seems to me to be an attempt to convince people of the existence of a God through the use of scientific language, or to be generous, the search for God through the use of science. Either way I remain unconvinced that I.D. belongs in the realm of a proper science.

I am admittedly quite ignorant of Darwin and his theory's as well, an ignorance I was attempting to alleviate with this book. But because of the authors vitriolic nature toward Darwin and his theory I cannot help but consider anything he says on the subject as irrationally biased.

So to err on the side of caution I will say that my biggest lesson here is that I have no more time to waste on the intellectually dishonest opinions of Jonathan Wells PH.D.

If you're curious about intelligent design (I am, as a science teacher and as a Christian), I suppose this is a good book to read. However, you should also follow up by checking the author's citations. Alas, I found that most of his claims about "Darwinism" (a term he never clearly defines and uses to mean pretty much anything bad) are demonstrably and provably false. He carefully selects and then very creatively edits quotes from various scientists to make them appear to say whatever he wants instead of what they actually said; many of his sources have debunked his "quotes" online. His evidence in support of I.D. consists mainly of the irreducible complexity hypothesis, which has the advantage that anytime one of their "irreducibly complex" features turns out to have a solid evolutionary track record (think eyeball), the I.D. advocates can just pick another structure that hasn't been properly studied yet without ever admitting they were wrong.

Ultimately, this book demonstrates the failure of I.D. as science. The author keeps trying to redefine what science should mean in an effort to force inclusion of his ideas; finally he has to divert attention from his lack of evidence with an alleged conspiracy by the powerful "Darwinists" to suppress the bold thinkers (like the author, I guess) who advocate I.D. Worse, though, than its failure as science is I.D.'s failure as theology; by relying solely on things we haven't fully explained yet to support the thesis, the Intelligent Design movement in effect tries to make my God into a god of ignorance. My faith is bigger than natural causes, bigger than rational explanation, and is not subject to peer review; that's why we call it faith, you dunderheads. New discoveries about the universe do not make God smaller, they only make his creation all the more wonderful. Rather than legitimizing religion, forcing religion into a pseudo-scientific mold only makes God (and the advocates of intelligent design) look silly.

This book mentions the fact that in Cobb county (Georgia) stickers were put in biology books that state evolution is a theory. Technically true, but the intention of putting in these stickers by the Cobb county school board was to cast doubt on evolution. In science, a theory explains facts and observations and scientific laws. For example, relativity theory is a theory. The structure of atoms being protons and neutrons and electrons is a theory. The movement of the continental plates is a theory. Heck, even the movement of the earth around the sun is a theory.

The theory in all of these is a well tested model which explains facts and observations. But, none of these subjects when taught in a science class faces the risk of a sticker being put in that states that it is only a theory. The difference with evolution is that there are certain religious adherents who perceive evolution as a threat. Those who think this way are of course, the target market of not only this book, but all the "politically incorrect guide" books.

Why is it that those who argue against the descent of all species from a common ancestor (such as this author) argue against evolution by calling it Darwinism? When someone talks about relativity theory, it is not called Einsteinism even though relativity theory was a completely new theory when illustrated by Einstein, but the evolution of species was already known to the scientifically educated before Darwin was famous.

Charles Darwin showed overwhelming evidence for evolution and he showed how natural selection worked within evolution in order to favor certain traits. Even in the 18th century there were many men who were already developing ideas on species evolving from earlier ones. The reason why Wells and other IDers call evolution, "Darwinism" is because they want to make it seem like some kind of radical ideology, such as Marxism. It is easier to attack evolution not as a science but as represented as an individual person, that being Charles Darwin.

The fact is, Mr. Wells wants people to think that scientists are unsure about evolution. That is complete and utter poppycock. There is a project called "Project Steve". It lists all those with the name of Steve or Stephen (or foreign language equilvalents). Well, it turns out there are more PhDs in biology with that first name than all PhDs in biology of any first name who is an advocate of Intelligent Design or creationism. If someone really wants to learn about evolution and the facts that support it, I highly and strongly recomment the website, "Talkorigins."

Even though this book claims to be about natural explanations (Darwinism & Creationism), Mr. Wells seems primarily concerneed with defending his Christian beliefs, even going so far as to blame atheism for killing more people than religion, pointing at Hitler (who was a catholic BTW, and never excommunicated by the church) and communism. I have 2 beefs with this particular argument:
1) It is not atheism per se which has killed/made people kill, but rather dogmatism (whether statist or religious) -
2) people have killed enthousiastically for religion in the past, and still keep on doing so, not always in such media-attention grabbing ways, e.g vaccination programs against for HPV (a lethal STD) (the vaccin was safe & 100% effective) were frustrated by the grey old ones in the federal government, because HPV should continue to serve as a deterrent against premarital sex, an ungodly practice which a vaccin would let go unpunished. In the meantime, HPV keeps killing thousands yearly.The author glossed over this kind of cruelty against innocent citizens in the name of his beloved Christian values.
If only he'd stick to the title's subject, then I would not have had to wonder why no mention was made of e.g. child molestations by catholic priests (who apparently did not belief in the doomsday they told everyone else to believe in).
The author does not seem to care too much about the facts of both sides: he makes blanket claims regarding opinions of creationists which IMHO do not hold true, such as (iirc) that creationists do believe in evolution. Come on, doesn't that go directly against the core of creationism?
On top of this, he sometimes uses a nasty tone when writing about Darwinism, betraying his prejudice.
In all, I cannot reccommend this book.The author seems to work with a different definition of politically incorrect than me, I would rather file this book under the category of politically *correct*. This book seems to me to be biased pro-Christianity hence pro-Creationism. Losing all semblance of objectivity (perhaps my own bad for presuming there ever should be any) and credibility. The author makes wild claims about both sides, intending to make Creationism (and the rest of religion) come off best. Merely the act of doing that (in this way), he clearly fails. A waste of money regardless of which side you're on.

I can't even attempt to be as wordy as the professional reviewers who have already reviewed this, so just let me make a few simple comments.

One is that critiques of ID accuse anyone who considered ID to be plausible MUST be doing so because they believe in God. Therefore, goes the simple argument, they are anti-science "Creationists." It is clear from this book that ID is far from being anti-science, and its proponents are clearly not bibilical literalist creationists.

The book posits that many of those who most vehemently oppose ID are themselves doing so because they do not believe in God. Atheism v. Theism. As the author of the book points out, a scientific evaluation must rise above basic metaphysical presupositions and not deny the evidence or lack of evidence because it conflicts with one's metaphysical starting point.

The author argues (I think persuasively) that many core presupositions in Darwinsim are not supported scientifically. He also argues that empirical observation suggests "Intelligent Design."

In no way does this book attempt to prove that God exists. But it also points out that Darwinist ideas do not prove the non-existence of God.

Darwin was not an atheist. He said that he was agnostic and that he did not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation.

This book is good for agnostics, but atheists will hate it.

One can make a good living going against the mainstream. Sometimes the minority is indeed right, but other times the minority is a minority because everyone else is right. The publishers of the Politically Incorrect Guides are reaping the rewards of giving the minority voices an outlet. Other Guides enable important overlooked facts to reach the general public, but this Guide enables an Argument from Incredulity to reach the general public.

Because that is what this is, a defense of Intelligent Design against Evolutionary Theory.

Ultimately this book comes down to Wells saying "I cannot believe this happened on it's own, so it must have been the work of a designer." That is not a scientific argument. The most ironic thing about this book is that Intelligent Design - by necessity - accepts evolution, just not the Theory of Evolution. The ultimate difference between Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution is that one of them posits natural causes and the other posits active intelligence for the exact same event. Homo Sapiens evolving from Australopiticus Afarensis? One says it happened by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, the other says it happened because a designer caused the mutations. Call it "Designed Mutation" and "Designed Selection", it still has Common Descent! There is no contradiction with the data (which Wells turns to and away from whenever he thinks it helps his argument), just the cause of the data. Did this mutation happen naturally or because of a designer? This is not talked about among Intelligent Design supporters.

What exactly is Wells defending? Well, there are several arguments made in favor of Intelligent Design, and none of them hold up under much closer examination. First is the argument of Irreducible Complexity - that if we could find any system wherein all the parts are fully necessary and NONE of those parts have other uses, then you have an Irreducibly Complex system. That is true, except for all the searching not a single Irreducibly complex system has been found. It's not even true that complexity implies design, as per a snowflake.

What of the argument of Methodological Naturalism? Methodological Naturalism insists that if you cannot find a natural explanation, then you cannot explain the event observed - nothing less, nothing more. A scientists who cannot find a natural explanation will write "I cannot find a natural explanation" and that will be the end of that note and the beginning of more investigations. Objecting to Methodological Naturalism is objecting to the basic process of attempting to find out, and attempting to find out is exactly what science is.

Does that mean that evolutionary theory is linked to atheism? Not at all, there is no atheist agenda to promote evolution, evolution is no more in conflict with theology any more than science as a whole of science is, and the two are not in conflict. The reviewer who discussed an "atheist utopia on earth" was not talking about anything that is happening in the real world ... which is ironic because that is what the "Darwinists" are accused. I do fail to see what "Right" versus "Left" have to do with the debate, as another reviewer commented with "humanists/Christianphobic Left and the Religious Right". Such comments make no sense to me, as I fail to see how Natural Selection, Random Mutation, and Common Descent have anything to do with politics.

Wells critiqued the lack of fossil evidence. What lack of fossil evidence? It is true that only a small percentage of deceased animals fossilize, but there have been so many animals that the lack of evidence has not been a problem. Or there are the few items that were actual frauds, as revealed by scientists, such as the fameous Piltdown Man. The reason scientists distrusted it from the very start is because they weren't allowed to investigate it, and before the fraud was revealed it was already distrusted and ultimately disregarded. After scientists were allowed to investigate it, it became the creationists favorite fossil. Yes, there are frauds, but the fraudulent status of Piltdown has had exactly what impact on Australopiticus Africanus? None, really. The moths? That's not even an actual fraud.

As I wrote, this book is ultimately ironic, as it is a division between Random Mutation and Designed Mutation, between Natural Selection and Designed Selection, preserving Common Descent. Many people who praise this book would not be so praiseful if it was understood that this does not contradict evolution, only the Theory of Evolution. What Intelligent Design does, and its sole contribution to the debate is to introduce a designer who might or might not be a deity. It doesn't have to be a deity, say the advocates of Intelligent Design, and therefore Intelligent Design can be a theory.

True, it doesn't have to be a deity. It could be aliens. Of course, these aliens were either designed by a deity, designed by other aliens, or evolved on their own. If they evolved on their own, there goes the whole purpose of Intelligent Design. If designed by other aliens, it's turtles all the way down until you get to the undesigned intelligent alien. If it is a deity, there go the claims to being not religious. Then again, even if it were designed by deity, it could still be scientific - if there were any evidence that it was designed by deity. If you can come up with something truly unexplainable, there you have your proof - the irreducably complex system for example. ID could be testable, if we could find something that tests as truly unexplainable. So far we have not. There is no evidence for design.

Then there is the trump card of ID, that the intelligent designer did not leave evidence of design. THAT is truly untestable, no matter what arguments Wells and other Intelligent Design advocate might marshal against it, and THAT is what makes Intelligent Design a religious position, and THAT is what makes Intelligent Design akin to full fledged Creationism.

No evidence can be marshalled for or against any religious proposition, and no evidence can be marshalled for or against the idea of an undetectable designer.

Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism, but it is similar in that both are religious instead of scientific.

Occasionally some ID proponent does make a claim that is scientifically testable. "See, we found an irreducably complex system." Unfortunately for Intelligent Design, the tests show it is not irreducably complex, making ID "theory" a testable theory in the same sense as Phlogiston, another disproven theory.

Finally, what is a "Darwinist"?

We got this to replace one we had already had. It was great to recieve it so fast and I will look forward to buying more.

The title of the book does not do it justice. Not only is it politically incorrect, it is scientifically, factually, logically, academically and morally incorrect.

Once again Jonathan Wells has clearly outlined that Intelligent Design is nothing but a series of well refuted "negative evidence" for evolution. For those that disagree, when you read this book, please try to find one piece of evidence FOR design. Let's assume for a moment that evolution is actually false - now please tell me what Intelligent Design predicts. One scientifically testable prediction is all I ask.

It is telling to see these arguments hammered out in the popular press. I am all for legitimate scientific debate - it is what science thrives on. However, when scientists have a genuine debate they argue in peer reviewed journals, not popular books.

Wells follows up the terrible and inaccurate "Icons of Evolution" with another book of creationist lies and propaganda. This book is not only politically incorrect, but incorrect in most other ways as well.

While Wells likes to portray himself like other religious crackpots , such as Michael Behe, that "saw the light" one day, Wells obtained his Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the UC-Berkeley after receiving a Masters of Religious Education from Unification Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale University.

One thing you'll notice in the book, as seems to be common place in creationist propaganda, is that the book is almost entirely filled with "Why evolution is wrong" and almost nothing in terms of support for ID. This of course should surprise no one considering there is nothing in the literature that supports ID. Wells also employs another favorite trick of creationists where he will take a quote from a paper out of context to make it appear to support his position.

While the Disco institute will hail this as the final nail in the coffin of evolution for the 9,999,999,999 time, people should see this for the religious fluff that it is.

BTW: Does anyone actually call themselves a "Darwinist" anymore?