 |
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong by Jonathan Wells
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Jonathan Wells Illustrator: Jody F. Sjogren Edition: Paperback Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2002-01 ISBN: 0895262002 Number of pages: 338 Publisher: Regnery Publishing
Book Reviews of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is WrongBook Review: A different kind of book on evolution Summary: 5 Stars
I always like to amuse myself with the "single-star" reviewers who "review" a book without the undue burden of actually having read it. Wells does not write this as an advocate of creationism. He restricts the scope of this book to examining scientific evidence and concludes that Darwinism fails to hold up to the evidentiary standards of science. Any "reviewer" that has actually read the book would know that.
This is different kind of book on evolution in that it is one of the few that actually adheres to real scientific principles. Nowhere is any scripture quoted, the Bible mentioned or is there any discussion on competing theories. This is a book that examines the science of evolutionary theory as it stands today.
What does that mean exactly? Simple - many of the poor unfortunate victims of government education think that "science" just means anything coming out of a laboratory or more practically anything that criticizes religion.
Okay folks listen carefully to what "science" really is. Thanks to Wikipedia for the definition:
***
"Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. [Darn that physical evidence]
Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way.
A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world." [Evidence again? come on now we have work to do]
**
A few things stand out here. First - prediction to test a theory, evidence, "tested reproducibly" and so on.
This is the first book I've read on evolution that actually uses "science" to examine the evidence for or against the theory. (I've read many on both sides of the fence) Science being evidence based.
Wells certainly has the scientific credentials to do this and certainly more qualified than most of us to examine this evidence and make assertions based such evidence or lack thereof.
The central theme of the book examines the main "Icons of Evolution" that the defenders of the theory call upon to show that evolution has been proven or at least demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence. When someone asserts that evolution is a "fact" or has been "proven" they typically use one or more or all of these "Icons".
They are briefly
1. The Miller-Urey Experiment
2. Darwin's Tree of Life
3. Homology
4. Haekel's Embryos
5. Archaeopteryx
6. The Peppered Moths
7. Darwin's Finches
8. Four winged Fruit Flys
9. Fossil horses and their evolution
10. Ape to Man (the famous ascendancy drawing)
Wells scrutinizes these icons and pretty much explodes them all. The real fact here is that none of these icons support Darwin's theory - even the ones that aren't faked ( like the peppered moths or Haekel's Embryos).
One example I can sum up refers to the origins of life and the Miller-Urey experiment; if we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable-why are we so very sure that it happened? Such evidence would not hold up in court, and sure won't satisfy the requirements for a science.
Granted Wells is not the first to point out the problems with all these so-called proofs, but put together like this and no open minded person can look at the theory of evolution again without wondering why, if the evidence is so strong do the orthodox followers of the theory rely on these shaky (at best) themes?
If evolution is fact, then show it with scientific rigor. Wells shows us that the evidence is in question, or is outright false or faked. If these icons represent the best proof of evolution and I suppose they must since they are presented in "science" textbooks over and over again, then it appears as if Darwinian Evolution is truly a myth. Wells presents this case in a very readable book.
I gave a copy of this book to a high school science teacher I know. She refused to even open the cover. This is not the reaction of one dedicated to science.
Darwinists generally refuse to debate the subject preferring instead to resort to name-calling and personal smears. This always makes me suspicious. If you have defendable evidence show it, debate it and quiet the critics.
It has always mystified me why educated people dedicated to "science" (see above definition) prefer instead to ignore contrary evidence and home in on their own personal pet theory or myth. That's not science. That's dogma.
Again with thanks to Wikipedia:
"The term dogmatism carries the implication that people are upholding their beliefs in an unthinking and conformist fashion. Dogmata are thought to be anathema to science and scientific analysis..."
Many real scientists maintain that the evidence for Darwinian macroevolution does not meet the standards for science. Asking evolutionists for evidence usually arouses annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility. Getting around the real evidence thing is difficult, but of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting really, really hard.
This book clearly shows that Darwinian evolution has not been proven, and has so far failed every attempt to be proven using a real scientific method.
In response to the preceding "reviews" evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Real sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does, except evolutionists. This shows that we are really dealing with competing religions; overarching explanations of origin and destiny in conflict with each other. This is the root of the fury of their response to skepticism.
The term "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.
Try getting a straight answer from a Darwinist; it's like giving a bobcat a prostate exam. You'll get everything but answers. They'll tell you you're a crank, imply over and over that you're a Creationist, they'll say that you're an enemy of science as if someone who asks for actual evidence is an enemy of science.
This is the behavior not of scientists, but of advocates, of True Believers. I used to think that science was about asking questions, not about defending things you didn't really know. Religion, I thought, was the other way around. I guess I was wrong.
Wells however addresses none of these issues. This is a science book written by a credentialed scientist. Philosophy and religion are outside the scope of this work despite Wells' critics feeble claims to the contrary.
I've read the so-called debunking of Wells. I encourage all of you to read it as well. It will tell you way more than I can about the state of evolutionary "science" and the quality of the evidence. Some researchers take issue with how Well's presents their own research. It's not the first time in the history of science that certain discoveries are ignored or suppressed when they conflict with the existing momentum.
One `reviewer" claims that "deconstruction is easy". He is right. Deconstruction of DAWINISM is easy. Deconstruction of science is anything but. Deconstruction of science, real science is virtually impossible. Do we see anyone deconstructing the laws of motion, relativity, celestial mechanics or other real sciences? Nope. The evidentiary rules of science require proof that is irrefutable. That's what "science" means.
Wells has also been criticized for only mentioning negative evidence and "ignoring" all the supporting evidence. Perhaps but this is perfectly legitimate in the world of real sciences. Again this is by people who are ignorant of real science. You can have the best hypothesis in the world supported by a mountain of evidence yet the hypothesis fails to take into consideration other negative evidence and fails to make an accurate prediction. In science this means your hypothesis is a flawed or false. You are not allowed to ignore evidence against your hypothesis or cook the evidence to your specifications. Yet this is exactly what Darwinists do routinely. Wells is merely doing his job as a scientist in pointing this out.
Wells wrote a science book here. It's sad that many claiming to be advocates of science fail to recognize that. That alone speaks volumes.
The subtitle of this work is "Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong" and Wells does an admirable job of showing just that.
I don't expect this to change the minds of the entrenched orthodoxy however. I am reminded of the following wisdom: [from a real scientist]
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck
Summary of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is WrongEverything you were taught about evolution is wrong.
|
 |
|
|
|