55 of 105 people found the following review helpful
Fantastic Popular Treatment of the Darwin v. Design Debate,
This review is from: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Paperback)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is an excellent introduction to the new and emerging Darwin vs. design debate. Biologist Jonathan Wells' book is an especially helpful primer to general audience readers who only hear about this controversy through elite media/old media accounts. This publication succeeds as both an informative and entertaining read.
Many reporters and editors distort the actual claims made by scientists who support the theory of intelligent design. Reporters often create their own distorted definitions of the intelligent design. Typically, design scientists are not even given a chance to speak for themselves in press accounts. With so much information, what are readers supposed to think? But in this book readers actually get a glimpse of what intelligent design actually involves from a scientist who supports the modest scientific claims of intelligent design.
At the outset, Wells carefully defines the terms of the debate. As he points out, "evolution" can mean many things. Most definitions of the term "evolution" are uncontroversial and even compatible with the theory of intelligent design. Wells makes clear that the theory of intelligent design is only the direct competitor of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Wells devotes a handful of chapters to scientific criticisms of various aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. He then goes on to present the scientific case for the theory of intelligent design. Common media misconceptions are dispelled along the way.
Later chapters discuss the debate surrounding neo-Darwinism in the context of public school controversies, recent court decisions, and in other settings. There has also been much distortion in media retellings of these events. Wells' book provides a brief but important corrective that gets the facts of those matters straight.
It is the height of political incorrectness to express scientific skepticism of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, or to voice interest in the theory of intelligent design. (This is evident in the sad fact that this book has been vehemently attacked by persons who have obviously never read it.) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is a book that needed to be written. Thankfully, it is now here.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 17 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 15, 2006 5:47:23 AM PST
Do scientific journals count as "elite media/old media" accounts?
Posted on Nov 17, 2006 12:37:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2006 12:46:46 PM PST
Mr. Wells is an ID proponent and yet here we are presented by this book written by him espousing the virtues of ID and exposing evolution for the "farce" that it supposedly is. If there is indeed an effort afoot to keep "scientists" convinced of the practicability of ID from publishing in peer reviewed journals as Wells so speciously claims, then what is to stop them from doing what Mr. Wells has so resourcefully done? There is no dearth of books available that lay siege to the idea of evolution. If one were to browse the titles available on this site for example many would be found. There can be no doubting, therefore, that ID proponents do have a voice. With such ubiquitous literary support for ID and with such disquisition concerning ID in general, one would think that a legitimate ID "scientist" would by now have come forward with the breakthroughs he was led to through using the weltanschauung of ID. Please, let all the research, experiments, exhaustive studies, and data generated by the deployment of the principles of ID be known. I for one am dieing to see them. Organizations like Answers in Genesis (AIG) and The Discovery Institute would be only too happy to bankroll such a "scientist," so lack of funding is really no excuse.
ID is of no use to science, not because it encourages an ostensibly anti-science worldview or a belief in God, but because it simply has nothing to offer. As of yet, the only people who have found any use whatsoever for ID are religious fundamentalists in search of support for their beliefs. A few religiously motivated "scientists" have jumped on the ID bandwagon and are trying their level best to hijack science for their own purposes, but they don't by any means represent the opinion of most scientists, 99% of whom "believe in" evolution. Science is, however, immune to the tamperings of people like Wells simply because lies are no foundation from which to discover real truth. It is truth, real truth that enables us to make science work for us. Columbus would not have discovered the New World had he held to the belief that the world was flat for example. Knowledge can only build on real knowledge and that is a fact that will never change no matter how badly we would like it to. It is our thirst for truth and desire for knowledge that is in the end the Achilles heel of ID or any other form of pseudo-science. No amount of posing, grandstanding or chest thumping will save anything in science if it cannot deliver. If we as scientists are to accept anything about our natural world, it simply must work. It must fit in with what we already know to be true and it must have come about as a result of observable, testable and repeatable events. We simply cannot observe a designer, be it God Ra or Zeus.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2006 1:46:43 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:18:16 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2006 8:18:11 PM PST
If evolution does not work, how do you explain the diversity of life? And please, give us an Scientific explanation.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2006 8:18:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2006 8:20:08 AM PST
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a retired electronic engineer with way too much time on his hands. Your words and your methods betray you Keech.
Please, ignore my labeling of Wells' claims as specious. Concentrate instead on "let all the research, experiments, exhaustive studies, and data generated by the deployment of the principles of ID be known." If you reply, however, please keep in mind the things I pointed out in my original comment.
To an evolutionary biologist, there is only one type of evolution. Macro and micro are distinctions created to enable some people to comfortably accept change over time while ignoring its implications for deep time. Evolution on the scale which you require for absolute proof takes more time than merely 150 years. If you manage to stay alive for about 150,000 years or so, then you might just have your proof.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2006 8:56:30 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:18:15 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2006 9:03:55 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:18:15 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2006 12:23:33 PM PST
Don't change the subject. Please provide a scientific source for the diversity on earth.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2006 4:32:10 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:18:14 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2006 9:46:02 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2006 9:49:31 AM PST
Keech, you sure have your creationist and non-biologist biology down pat. Please don't let that distract you from my original comment, however, which is where is the research? What has this "science" of ID generated thus far? Again, If you choose to reply (who am I kidding, you will) please keep in mind the points I brought up in my original comment.
By the way, folks, please bear in mind that only creationist sources are deemed accurate by this man. If you are at all interested, by all means please do a little research into what real biologists have to say about E. Coli and D. Melanogaster. I'll just leave it at that.