Group
Below is a report by Jonathan Wells tour of Arkansas, Kansas, Washington
promoting his new book, Icons of Evolution, with one minor change.
To kill two birds with one stone, here also is Amazon.com's latest page on
Icons of Evolution, plus an editorial review. Note the Sales Rank of 238
(smaller is better).
==============================================================================
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262762/qid%3D972532528/104-4012171-4962335
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
by Jonathan Wells
List Price: $27.95
Our Price: $22.36
You Save: $5.59 (20%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours.
See larger photo
Hardcover - 362 pages 1 edition (October 1, 2000)
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 0895262762
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 238
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
The publisher, Alex Novak , July 27, 2000
Debunking Darwin.
Jonathan Wells has news for you. Everything you were taught about
evolution was wrong. Every iconic image--from the "primordial soup" to
the changing colors of moths in industrial England, to the ascent of man--
is, says Dr. Wells, either inconclusive, incomplete, or even outright
fraudulent. Wells commands readers to sharpen their critical thinking and
challenge the integrity of scientific thought, while arguing for greater
honesty in the continuing, contentious debate over evolution. Wells argues
that the most famous case studies for evolution "no longer convey the
spirit or substance of science, but have become instruments of
indoctrination--the icons of evolution." These icons deserve to be toppled
for the faleshoods that they are. Icons of Evolution is a book that will light
the fires of controversy and force scientists to give us a more honest and
objective report on what we've truly discovered about evolution in the past
100 years.
==============================================================================
Now for Wells' report. I particularly like this bit:
"My debate partner objected that design is not scientific because it
is not published in peer-reviewed literature. I pointed out that Mike
Behe and others have attempted to publish articles on the subject,
but they have been rebuffed on the grounds that design is not
scientific. Catch-22: Design is not scientific because it's not
published in peer-reviewed journals, but it's not published in peer-
reviewed journals because it's not scientific."
Steve
==============================================================================
Report by Jonathan Wells, "Arkansas, Kansas, Washington," 26 October 2000.
I returned two nights ago from Arkansas and Kansas.
I went to Arkansas a week ago to teach one class in a Templeton-funded
course on science and religion at the University of Central Arkansas (north
of Little Rock), and to participate in a symposium on ID with two other
people. As I was being driven to campus to lecture in the class, I was
suddenly informed that the students had been given a detailed critique of
my position the week before, and that I would be sharing the hour with a
Baptist minister and philosophy instructor who had just been brought in
from Tennessee. The minister was an accommodationist defender of Darwinian
evolution ("evolution is just the way God did it") and critic of
intelligent design ("science can't deal with the supernatural"). I got the
impression that the funders were afraid of what might have happened to the
students if I had been allowed to present my case unchallenged. Naturally,
I was flattered.
The symposium that evening drew a large crowd. On the panel with me were
the Baptist minister who had been brought in to neutralize my subversive
effect on the students, and Dr. Lothar Schafer (physical chemist at the
University of Arkansas). The minister went first, wasting 10 minutes on a
rather obscure lecture about Pierce and Kierkegaard before attacking ID
("Ken Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, has definitively refuted Michael
Behe..."). Schafer spoke next, arguing that mechanistic explanations such
as Darwinian evolution are inconsistent with what we now know of non-local
interactions in quantum mechanics, and that the universe appears to have
been designed from the beginning to "self-assemble" living things. I
followed by criticizing some of the icons of evolution and arguing in favor
of ID. (Note that the two scientists on the panel criticized Darwinism and
defended ID, while only the accommodationist minister rose to Darwin's
defense!)
The first question from the floor was a softball directed to Schafer. All
I can remember after that is the invective directed at me by Darwinists in
the audience (who were in the majority, judging from how many people
applauded after each insult). Not since I spoke in defense of Roger DeHart
in Burlington, Washington last year have I received so much abuse. I was
called a liar, deceiver, hypocrite, and religious fanatic, among other
things. People in the audience defended staged peppered moth pictures,
made excuses for faked embryo drawings, and denied the reality of the
Cambrian explosion. Feeling a bit curmudgeonly, I refused to buckle, and I
kept emphasizing that twisting evidence to fit a theory is bad science.
Strangely, I had a great time, cracking jokes as the verbal slime
splattered over me. This seemed to provoke the Darwinists even more....
When the symposium ended, two wonderful things happened. First, a couple
of bright-eyed undergraduates walked up to me -- the first friendly voices
of the evening. One carried Bill Dembski's book, Intelligent Design, under
his arm. They thanked me for standing up to the Darwinists, and we chatted
conspiratorially for a few minutes about how to promote ID on campus. I
slipped them some bookmarks with "Ten Questions To Ask Your Biology Teacher
About Evolution," and warned them that asking such questions could be
dangerous to their academic health. As they walked away, I knew that the
future belongs to them.
Second, the organizer of the symposium walked up. Philosophy professor Jim
Dietrick, a very decent fellow, thought the evening had gone remarkably
well, considering the level of hostility, and I agreed. Jim felt they had
turned a corner that evening. Previously, he said, it had always been the
Christians who had been on the defensive; now, for the first time, the
Darwinists were on the defensive. Needless to say, I was deeply gratified.
I spent the next few days working on an article for the December issue of
American Spectator (an issue devoted to The Cause that you will not want to
miss!). Then I went to Kansas to give two lectures on Monday.
The first Kansas lecture was at Washburn University in Topeka, site of last
year's symposium which included [IDers] Steve Meyer and David DeWolf
and myself (along with Steve Abrams of the Kansas School Board). About 50
people gathered to hear me speak on "Let's Teach the TRUTH About
Evolution." Kansas Citizens For Science (a more accurate name for which
would be Kansas Citizens for Disinformation) distributed leaflets at the
door (including one attacking me personally), and the campus bookstore sold
Icons of Evolution in the back of the room.
After my 30-minute talk the discussion was quite lively, with a Scottish
Presbyterian minister vehemently defending Darwinian evolution and a number
of non-biologist scientists agreeing with my criticisms of it. (Is there a
pattern emerging here?)
The most memorable aspect of the Washburn event was the very noticeable
conversion of two members of the audience. One, a middle-aged businessman,
said with audible amazement in his voice that he was shocked to learn that
the principal "evidences" he had been taught for evolution had been faked.
He noted that if he were to misrepresent his products as much as Darwinists
have misrepresented theirs, he would go to jail. The second was a young
man who said he was just starting a career as a biology teacher, and now
that he knew the truth about the icons he wondered how he should approach
the topic of evolution. This gave me an opportunity to emphasize that
evolution should be taught -- but truthfully. Naturally, I encouraged him
to read my book. The audience also included a mother with her two young
home-schooled sons, who asked some very intelligent questions and had me
autograph copies of my book.
The evening lecture at Kansas State University in Manhattan was poorly
attended. Apparently, the person who was supposed to advertise the event
(Discovery Institute had supplied 50 four-color posters for that purpose)
had dropped the ball. Only 26 people were scattered around a hall that
seated 200. Among the attendees, however, were two noted accommodationist
Christians: Keith Miller (Kansas State paleontologist) and John Staver
(pro-Darwin Kansas educator).
After my talk (similar to the one I had given earlier in the day at
Washburn), Miller and Staver took the lead in defending not only Darwinian
evolution, but also the way it is presented in textbooks. (At one point
Miller specifically defended the practice of tailoring the evidence to make
it fit the theory.) Miller and Staver were at least respectful, however;
the abuse I had expected did not materialize. Various other members of the
audience asked some good questions about the science.
As in Topeka, the most memorable part of the evening was a very noticeable
conversion. A man (accompanied by his son) asked a question in which it
was clear that he had just heard for the first time about the lies in
evolution textbooks; and he was righteously indignant about the lame
defenses being offered by Miller and Staver. He had to leave before the
discussion ended, but he took a copy of Icons of Evolution with him.
Last night I participated in a debate at the University of Puget Sound in
Tacoma, Washington, organized by a campus Christian organization. Before a
standing-room-only crowd of several hundred, a professor of evolutionary
biology criticized ID and argued that it is non-science and should not be
taught in biology classes. I argued that the icons of evolution reveal
Darwinism to be applied materialistic philosophy that distorts the
evidence, and that ID appears unscientific only because Darwinists have
re-defined science to exclude it.
The debate was lively and quite civilized. The lowest point, in my view,
was when my adversary claimed that I was flitting from topic to topic like
a presidential candidate. (Hmmm. Maybe I should run for president....)
We discussed homology in vertebrate limbs, Haeckel's embryos, peppered
moths, Archaeopteryx, and Darwin's finches. Not surprisingly, he rejected
my criticisms on various grounds: the icons don't really distort the
evidence that much, they are just isolated mistakes, and textbook
publishers are slow to make corrections. I emphasized that the icons
seriously distort the evidence, that they are supposed to be the BEST
evidence for Darwinism, and that 130 years (in the case of Haeckel's embryo
drawings) is enough time for publishers to revise their textbooks.
A biology professor in the audience said it seemed that I was arguing for
design on the grounds that some things are too complicated for us to
understand. I said that design inferences are not based on ignorance, but
on evidence -- just as a jury does not convict a murderer on the grounds
that they can't figure out how the victim died. I described Bill Dembski's
explanatory filter and Mike Behe's notion of irreducible complexity (giving
specific examples from Mike's book, Darwin's Black Box). The biology
professor repeated her charge that I was basing design on ignorance. I
explained again, and she came back with the same objection. No progress
there....
My debate partner objected that design is not scientific because it is not
published in peer-reviewed literature. I pointed out that Mike Behe and
others have attempted to publish articles on the subject, but they have
been rebuffed on the grounds that design is not scientific. Catch-22:
Design is not scientific because it's not published in peer-reviewed
journals, but it's not published in peer-reviewed journals because it's not
scientific.
Despite the disagreements, the evening was quite cordial. This is the
FIRST time that an evolutionary biologist has agreed to go one-on-one with
me, on a level mat with a fair referee. I would have joined him for a beer
afterwards to continue the discussion, but it was getting late, and I had
miles to go before I could sleep....
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture
Discovery Institute, Seattle
==============================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 19:56:03 EDT