Icons of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth
Author Jonathan Wells
Publisher Regnery Publishing
Publication date January 2002
Media type Paperback
Pages 338
ISBN ISBN 0895262002

Icons of Evolution is a controversial book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, and a 2002 video about the book. The icons were summarized in his December 2000/January 2001 of the American Spectator article.[1].

In the book, Wells attempted to overthrow the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught.[2] Wells contended that the 10 case studies used to illustrate and teach evolution are flawed. Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled and its conclusions as to the evidentiary status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.[3]

Several of the scientists[who?] whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells[citation needed], stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions.[citation needed]

In the book, Wells focused on 10 examples that he said commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "icons".[2] He evaluated how seven of these icons are treated in ten "widely used" high school and undergraduate textbooks. Although Wells established a grading scale for the textbooks, Alan Gishlick reported that the grading scale was poorly constructed and inconsistently used.[2]

Kevin Padian and Alan D. Gishlick wrote a review in Quarterly Review of Biology of Wells' Icons comparing Wells to Tom Ripley, noting "In our view, regardless of Wells’s religious or philosophical background, his Icons of Evolution can scarcely be considered a work of scholarly integrity."[4] Gishlick wrote a more detailed critique for the National Center for Science Education in his article Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong[5]. Nick Matzke of talk.origins reviewed Wells' work in the article Icon of Obfuscation[6], and Wells responded with an A Response to Published Reviews (2002)[7].

Contents

[edit] Reception by creationists

Dean Kenyon, a creationist and co-author of the controversial textbook Of Pandas and People, said that Wells "has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades."[8] Paul Chien, who translated Icons into Chinese,[9] writes: "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 extensive research notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist."[10] Both Chien and Kenyon are fellows of the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design and skepticism of evolution, with Wells.

[edit] Reception by the scientific community

The members of the scientific community that have reviewed Icons of Evolution have rejected his claims and conclusions. Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.

Nick Matzke reviewed the work in an article titled "Icon of Obfuscation," and critiqued the book chapter by chapter. Matzke concluded, "Icons of Evolution makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship", and that "Icons contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and 'argumentative sleight-of-hand', the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing" [11].

Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."[12]

Of the motive of Wells' book Alan D. Gishlick wrote: "It is clear from Wells's treatment of the "icons" and his grading scheme that his interest is not to improve the teaching of evolution, but rather to teach anti-evolutionism. Under Wells's scheme, teachers would be hostile to evolution as part of biology instruction. Wells and his allies hope that this would open the door to alternatives to evolution (such as "intelligent design") without actually having to support them with science", and "In conclusion, the scholarship of Icons is substandard and the conclusions of the book are unsupported. In fact, despite his touted scientific credentials, Wells doesn't produce a single piece of original research to support his position. Instead, Wells parasitizes on other scientists' legitimate work".[2]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci devoted section of his Denying Evolution work to refute each point presented in Wells' Icons of Evolution.[13] Amongst the refutations Pigliucci noted several mistakes Wells made and outlined how Wells' oversimplified some issues to the detriment of the subject.

The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science,[14][15] and PZ Myers.[16] That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church[17] and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"[18] are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.[19][20][21][22][23] The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion."[24]

These specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design[25] as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience[26].

[edit] Wells' Icons

Wells' ten "icons" were:

1 Miller-Urey experiment
2 Darwin's tree of life
3 Homology in vertebrate limbs
4 Haeckel's embryos
5 Archaeopteryx
6 Peppered moth
7 Darwin's finches
8 Four-winged fruit flies
9 Fossil horses
10 Hominid evolution

The last three "icons" - four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution - were discussed in the book, but Wells did not evaluate their coverage in textbooks.[2] Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in any of the textbooks.[2]

[edit] Miller-Urey experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated what were believed to be the conditions on the early Earth and tested the Oparin-Haldane model for chemical evolution. In Icons of Evolution Wells argued that since the atmospheric composition used in the experiment is now known to be incorrect, it should not be used in textbooks.[2] Wells said that current ideas about the atmospheric composition of the early earth makes this type of chemical synthesis impossible due to the presence of "significant" amounts of oxygen. Matzke contends that Wells mischaracterises pre-biotic levels of oxygen; although current estimates of the oxygen content are higher than those used in the experiment, they are still far more reducing than Wells suggests[11] Gishlick discussed fourteen other Miller-Urey type experiments which were able to synthesise amino acids under a variety of conditions, including ones that were done under conditions like those currently believed to have been present in at the time when life is thought to have originated[2]

Wells gave four textbooks a D grade, and the other six Fs. Gishlick contended that Wells criteria "stack the deck against [the textbooks], ensuring failure. Wells grading criteria give a C or worse to any textbook that has a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus unless the figure caption "explicitly [said] that the experiment was irrelevant[2] Thus, even the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, would only receive a C.[2]

[edit] Darwin's tree of life

Wells discussed this use of phylogenetic trees in biology textbooks. He stated that textbooks do not adequately address the "Cambrian Explosion" and the emergence of "top-down" patterns of emergence of major phyla. He said that disagreements between morphological and molecular phylogenies disprove common ancestry and that textbooks should treat universal common descent as an unproven theory.[2] Although Wells presented the Cambrian Explosion as happening too quickly for the diversity to have been generated through "Darwinian evolution", Gishlick pointed out that the Cambrian fauna developed over 60 million years.[2] In addition, the emergence of major phyla does not mean that they originated during that time period, but rather that they developed the characteristic features that allow them to be classified into existing phyla.[2] In addition, since phylogenies summarize data, they are not presented as "evidence of evolution", but rather as summaries.[2]

Wells gave two textbooks Ds and the other eight Fs. Gishlick pointed out that Wells did not use the grading system consistently, criticising books for failing to discuss the Cambrian Explosion if they do so without calling it an explosion[2]

[edit] Haeckel's embryos

PZ Myers reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on Haeckel's Embryos writes

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory." [...] While Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. [...] All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association.[27] [emphasis in original]

Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication.[28]

To Wells' assertion in Icons that Haeckel's embryos and recapitulation theory appearing in biology textbooks is evidence of flaws in the teaching of evolution, Myers said "I'd say Jonathan Wells' claim is pretty much dead. Haeckel's work is not one of the pillars upon which evolution is built, and biologists have been saying so for at least 85 years (and more like over a century). Next time one of those clowns tries to haunt modern biology with the ghost of Ernst Haeckel, just look 'em in the eye and tell them they're full of crap."[29] The documentary Flock of Dodos challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that Haeckel’s Embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks.[30] One critic of Wells said "If one reads Wells' criterion for his bogus A-F grading scale for the textbooks in Icons, it quickly becomes apparent that even publishing illustrations that resemble Haeckel's to illustrate his folly will garner the book a D, the only difference between a D and an F in Wells' mind being a 'D' grade book selecting a few embryos rather than publishing the full swath Haeckel originally doctored."[31] PZ Myers says of Wells's claim about the use of Haeckel drawings in modern textbooks "They repeat the claim that Haeckel's embryos and all that silly recapitulation theory are still endemic in biology textbooks. It's not true, no matter how much they whine about it. I've gone over a number of these textbooks, and what you typically find at worst is a figure of the Haeckel diagrams for historical interest with an explanation that rejects recapitulation theory; more often what you find are photos or independently redrawn illustrations of the embryos."[32]

[edit] Darwin's Finches

Concerning Darwin's Finches (Chapter 8), Dave Wisker wrote,

The general reader is done a great disservice by this chapter in Icons of Evolution. Jonathan Wells does not sufficiently address the biographical or scientific literature on Darwin's Finches to enable the reader to make an informed decision regarding his argument. He writes, with exquisite irony, 'It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin's theory'. Since, as we have seen, Wells avoids most of it regarding Darwin's Finches, one wonders how much evidence there is to support his book.[33]

[edit] Cover picture

The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

[edit] Icons of Evolution video

In 2002, a video titled Icons Of Evolution and produced by Coldwater Media. In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book. The video also covers the story of Roger DeHart, one of the Discovery Institute's media campaigns claiming discrimination.[34]

The video was mentioned in testimony during Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by plaintiff Bryan Rehm. Rehm testified that Alan Bonsell, then-chairman of the board's curriculum committee, asked them to watch "Icons of Evolution" after teachers expressed concern that Bonsell did not believe in evolution and wished to see classroom discussions of evolution balanced "fifty-fifty" with creationism.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Survival of the Fakest by Jonathan Wells, 2000 (A reprint from the American Spectator)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education
  3. ^ Coyne, Jerry. "Creationism by Stealth", Nature, 410, (2001) 745-46. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. 
  4. ^ Alan D. Gishlick, Kevin Padian. "The Talented Mr. Wells", Quarterly Review of Biology, March 2002 vol. 77, no. 1. Retrieved on 2007-05-17. 
  5. ^ Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick (PDF here)
  6. ^ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html Icon of Obfuscation] by Nick Matzke
  7. ^ A Response to Published Reviews by Jonathan Wells, 2002
  8. ^ What people are saying about Icons of Evolution Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.
  9. ^ Paul Chien, Discovery Institute
  10. ^ What people are saying about Icons of Evolution, official website
  11. ^ a b Icon of Obfuscation Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong by Nick Matzke. Talk.Origins Archive
  12. ^ Creationism by Stealth Jerry Coyne. Answers In Science, Tufts University.
  13. ^ Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 252-264
  14. ^ Letter to Judith P. Fowler Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science
  15. ^ Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003.
  16. ^ Textbooks and Haeckel again PZ Myers. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.
  17. ^ The new Monkey Trial Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.
  18. ^ Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family
  19. ^ Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.
  20. ^ Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.
  21. ^ Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.
  22. ^ PZ Myers is such a LIAR! PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.
  23. ^ Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News, Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007.
  24. ^ The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute.
  25. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by over 700 scientists, 176 of whom hold positions related to biology; and it represents less than 0.6% of scientists in the US, and significantly less if all scientists in the world are included. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
  26. ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science
  27. ^ Wells and Haeckel's Embryos PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), February 15, 2007.
  28. ^ Response to Oral Testimony Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
  29. ^ Pharyngula: Exorcising the spectre of Haeckel again
  30. ^ Flock of Dodos Randy Olson.
  31. ^ It burns… it burns!! Brian Switek. Laelaps, February 7 2007.
  32. ^ Pharyngula: Discovery Institute fires its first salvo in the War Against Dodos
  33. ^ Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches Dave Wisker. Talk.Origins Archive, 2002
  34. ^ Not the Whole Truth, Roger Downey, Seattle Weekly, May 15, 2002

[edit] External links

[edit] Supporting 'Icons of Evolution'

[edit] Critical of 'Icons of Evolution'

v • d • e
Peppered moth
Biology
Writers and researchers
Works