Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: SirLinksalot
[Sun Myung Moon]'s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism -- Jonathan Wells

45 posted on 09/27/2006 10:23:50 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liberal Classic


[Sun Myung Moon]'s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism -- Jonathan Wells

Here is the Discovery Institute's response to
this piece of information :


Overview: Since the publication of Icons of Evolution (2000), biologist Jonathan Wells hasbeen subjected to a smear campaign by Darwin-only lobbyists, who have attacked everythingfrom Dr. Wells’s integrity as a scholar to his personal religious beliefs. This fact sheet rebuts some of the most outrageous smears.

1. Is Jonathan Wells a genuine scientist?

Dr. Wells’s scientific credentials are impeccable and speak for themselves.Dr. Wells earned his Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of Californiaat Berkeley, one of America’s top research universities.Dr. Wells engaged in further research as a postdoctoral research biologist at the Universityof California at Berkeley. (Beware of false information about Dr. Wells’s post-doc put outby the “National Center for Science Education.” See Truth Sheet, #03-2, “How the NCSEMisrepresents Jonathan Wells’s Science Credentials.”)

Dr. Wells has published articles in a number of leading scientific publications, includingDevelopment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, TheScientist, The American Biology Teacher, and Natural History.

2. Has the “Scientific Community” Refuted Icons of Evolution?

While Darwin-only activists shrilly denounce Dr. Wells’s book, they hardly speak for theentire scientific community.Findings presented in Icons of Evolution draw on the latest scientific research, and Dr.Wells includes more than 70 pages of documentation containing citations to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.Chapters of Icons of Evolution were peer-reviewed before publication by several scientists(including one Nobel laureate) to ensure their accuracy. These reviewers includedscientists who support Darwin’s theory of evolution and were therefore critical of Dr.Wells’ overall point of view.According to one biologist, Wells “has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims anddeceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins formany decades.” (Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology, San Francisco StateUniversity)

Another biologist writes that “Wells has done a great public service” by writing his book,adding that the book’s “extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism… with extensiveresearch notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist.” (PaulChien, Professor of Biology, University of San Francisco)

Since the publication of Dr. Wells’s book, some textbooks have started to correct theerrors he identified. For example, Holt, Rinehart and Winston recently acknowledged thatit re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s embryos icons in its latesttextbook and decided against their use. If the problems identified by Dr. Wells are non-existent, why are some textbook writers already making changes?

3. Is Icons of Evolution refuted by Dr. Wells’s religion?

Unable to disprove the science in Icons of Evolution, some Darwinists have resorted toattacks on Dr. Wells’s religion instead. For example, more than 40% of the book review ofIcons by by evolutionist Jerry Coyne in Nature was devoted not to the content of the bookbut to “outing” Dr. Wells as a member of the Unification Church.Trying to shift the focus onto Dr. Wells’s religion is bigotry, not science, and it ought tooffend thoughtful Americans who support religious liberty.Purporting to “refute” Dr. Wells’s scientific views by attacking his religion is a cynicalrhetorical ploy that has no place in legitimate scientific discourse. Darwinists who attack Dr. Wells and other scientists on the basis of their religion arehypocritical. While these Darwinists complain about supposed religious motivations ofscientists critical of Darwinism, they never object to the anti-religious motives of leading Darwinists.

For example, Darwinists Francis Crick and James Watson, co-discoverers of the structureof DNA, are outspoken atheists, and Crick has indicated that his scientific research wasmotivated by a desire to undermine belief in religion.

Similarly, Darwinist Richard Dawkins asserts that “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpoxvirus but harder to eradicate.”

When is the last time you heard a Darwin-only activistclaim that the scientific views of Crick, Watson, and Dawkins should be ignored becauseof their anti-religious views?

4. Does Dr. Wells misquote evolutionists?

Darwinists frequently claim they are being misquoted by scientists critical ofDarwinism—even when they aren’t. This is a debating trick employed by Darwin-onlylobbyists who don’t want to answer the scientific arguments being raised against neo-Darwinism. While Darwinists have sometimes tried to make this allegation against Jonathan Wells, the allegations aren’t supported by the evidence.

One example: In oral testimony before the Texas State Board of Education in July, 2003,biologist David Hillis complained that Dr. Wells quoted him “extensively” in Icons ofEvolution and alleged that the quotes were “taken completely out of context.”o In reality, Dr. Wells quoted a mere four sentences from Prof. Hillis on a singlepage in Icons, and none of the material was taken out of context.o

The quotes cited by Dr. Wells came from a chapter by Prof. Hillis in the book, Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, edited by biologistBrian K. Hall.

Ironically, Dr. Hall also peer-reviewed the chapter in Icons ofEvolution that quoted Prof. Hillis’s comments. Is Prof. Hall guilty ofmisunderstanding what Prof. Hillis was saying as well?o For a detailed refutation of Prof. Hillis’s spurious misquotation claim, see“Reponse to Dr. David Hillis” by Jonathan Wells, available at

146 posted on 09/27/2006 12:24:04 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson