744:
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." 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."
607:"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. 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.
789:. 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.
462:". 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. Wells contended that the 10 case studies used to illustrate and teach evolution are flawed. Wells's ten "icons" were:
1006:
he passes as a scholar, complete with Ph.D. Unfortunately, Dr Wells is intellectually dishonest. . . . He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent.
769:
single species into multiple species. Wells argues that, due to interbreeding between many of the finch "species", the 13 species may actually be less than previously thought. Contradicting this, Gishlick states that the separation "according to which species are separated by behaviors that lead animals to
902:
to
Buckingham, who required the Dover High School botany teachers to watch the DVD. They did not take up the opportunity to use it in their classes. The school board subsequently introduced a requirement that teachers read a statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School,
610:
Wells gave four textbooks a D grade, and the other six Fs. Gishlick contended that Wells criteria "stack the deck against , 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 says that
1043:
casts strong doubt on
Darwinism. But this characterization is false. ... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. ... It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons
1005:
But should we blame Ms Rider for her outrage upon learning that moths were glued to trees? No. Instead I blame Dr Wells, who wrote the article she cites as her source of information. While he has done no work on industrial mechanism, he has written opinion about that work. To one outside the field,
743:
Science communicator Brian Switek 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
724:
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
1432:
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
573:
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. Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in
288:
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
266:
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,
685:
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."
1468:
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
654:
years. 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. In addition, since phylogenies summarize data, they are not presented as "
606:
Wells argued that since the atmospheric composition used in the experiment is now known to be incorrect, it should not be used in textbooks. 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
768:
in fact heavily influenced by the finches as early as 1837, with Wisker stating that "Wells seems to be the one doing the speculating". Wells argues that, rather than evolving, the finch species may be "merging", combining from multiple species into a single species rather than diverging from a
689:
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
653:
and that textbooks should treat universal common descent as an unproven theory. 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 60,000,000
381:
noting "Evolution by natural selection and the origin of life are entirely different subjects. ... The validity of any particular theory of biological origins (and there are several) has no relevancy to the well-established validity of evolution by natural selection." He continued, "I can only
897:
staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included "communicating with âlegislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students" to âaddress the topic of ID in a scientifically and educationally responsible wayâ in public schools. Following discussions, Cooper sent the book and DVD of
1359:
Creationists such as
Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. ... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of
363:
says, not 'faked'." However, "we have excellent photographs, to which students can obtain easy access. Many or most colleges students of introductory biology actually see the embryos in the laboratory ..." Moreover, "vertebrate embryos, for most of the longest period of middevelopment,
308:
wrote: "Wells mines the standard evolutionary textbooks for exaggerated claims and misleading examples, which he counts as marks against evolution itself. His goal, of course, is not to improve the next editions of those books but to get them replaced by ID counterparts."
27:
330:
and concludes, "Wells, as much as he desperately tries to debunk what to him is the most crucial component of evolutionary theory, the history of human descent, is backed against the wall by his own knowledge of biology." In 2005, Pigliucci debated Wells on
293:
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
617:, would only receive a C. The claim that it is irrelevant is incorrect, as the experiment marked a major advance in studies of the origin of life, its results are still valid, and for teaching purposes it shows the methods of good experimental science.
1360:
evolution. ... It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory. â
1092:⌠For example we may be obligated to our patrons to make available works that embody ideas fundamental to significant cultural undercurrents such as "intelligent design" but not to burden budgets and minds with every other form of pseudoscience.
763:
is more to be credited with the popular finches, and that it was Lack who paraded the finches and claimed that they were instrumental in Darwin's theories. This claim is contradicted by Alan D. Gishlick and Dave Wisker, who state that Darwin
661:
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.
171:. Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells's conclusions.
611:
the experiment is irrelevant, regardless of whether or not the text being illustrated by the picture states that the atmosphere used in the experiment was incorrect. Gishlick notes that even the intelligent design textbook,
1514:
318:
1425:
326:. Amongst the refutations Pigliucci noted several mistakes Wells made and outlined how Wells oversimplified some issues to the detriment of the subject. Pigliucci also wrote an article-length review in
903:
asserting that Darwin's theory of evolution "is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." This led to the
178:, at the extreme of the struggle against evolutionary science. It was criticised for its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled, and its conclusions as to the evidential status of the
2228:
681:
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
1421:
408:
and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead. The
1088:
Libraries with larger budgets may want to purchase books that represent viewpoints at the extremes of this struggle, including such intelligent design tracts as ⌠Jonathan Wells's
1349:
1064:
289:
this would open the door to alternatives to evolution (such as "intelligent design") without actually having to support them with science...In conclusion, the scholarship of
781:
is, in fact, rare. Both agree that even if hybridization did occur, it would be irrelevant, because evolution does not specifically require divergence. Wisker concludes:
1876:
845:
404:
and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism" are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific
828:, and finishing with a modern human 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.
281:: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."
2401:
1789:
146:
40:
2041:
1763:
2093:
1709:
1044:
of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory.
709:
said it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel's drawing of embryos from its textbook prior to publication. The publisher said, ". . . in
1687:
1993:
244:. Specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design as a valid
382:
conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural selection."
2223:
1815:
905:
420:
2162:
2272:
969:
2327:
1740:
2145:
1919:
955:
197:
165:
by attacking how it is taught. The book includes a 2002 video companion. In 2000, Wells summarized the book's contents in an article in the
1843:
1448:
394:
2503:
2498:
1524:
725:
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
717:, the theory of evolution is described as a true scientific theory that will be refined and improved in the light of new evidence."
713:
of the Miller–Urey experiment carefully indicates the mistakes made in the assumptions about the early atmosphere. Throughout
118:
1437:
1346:
1061:
740:
challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that Haeckel's embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks.
2493:
2488:
416:
385:
The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by
1580:
1081:
368:
look remarkably alike, pretty much, but not exactly, as Haeckel figured them in some of his drawings"(emphasis in original)."
355:
that are allegedly still in biology books. Forrest and Gross noted that Haeckel's, "a conservative Christian youth", work was
1953:
1335:
1050:
1884:
840:
and produced by Coldwater Media. In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book. The video also covers the story of
258:
reviewed the work in an article titled "Icon of Obfuscation", and critiqued the book chapter by chapter. Matzke concluded, "
2430:
1748:
1617:
1019:
347:
2184:
1668:
1488:
304:
1974:
1937:
1170:
999:
188:
1236:
Icon of Obfuscation: Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong
909:
case which found that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and the school board policy was unconstitutional.
583:
471:
1649:
2360:
2320:
2199:
863:
706:
633:
himself only included a schematic diagram in his works. Wells stated that textbooks do not adequately address the "
390:
1786:
2423:
2028:
2016:
890:
377:
2045:
1760:
2097:
1706:
1250:
1684:
1550:
2391:
2355:
1990:
1040:
995:
874:
545:
524:
233:
196:
can scarcely be considered a work of scholarly integrity." Gishlick wrote a more detailed critique for the
555:
1812:
228:
have rejected his claims and conclusions. Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely
2313:
1634:
1309:
1186:
655:
502:
492:
405:
352:
174:
Representatives of majority views in the scientific community have criticized the book and regard it as
2159:
2299:
1859:
1905:
1725:
1125:
966:
805:
778:
642:
613:
428:
200:
in his article "Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong."
2281:
2267:
2251:
2126:
1957:
1863:
1737:
1239:
894:
753:
646:
534:
440:
409:
179:
154:
458:
Wells focused on 10 examples that he said were commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "
2376:
1584:
1562:
1403:
1290:
1143:
978:
866:
756:, Wells argues that Darwin's finches were merely a "speculative afterthought". Wells claims that
634:
401:
386:
332:
167:
150:
68:
58:
2462:
2285:
2276:
2141:
2004:
1915:
1880:
1838:
1826:
1800:
1774:
1554:
1520:
1509:
1395:
1282:
1116:
886:
800:
626:
482:
372:
360:
313:
245:
125:
113:
2080:
1218:
2467:
2444:
2273:
A reasonably short guide to Wells' "icons" of evolution, and why they are not what he claims
1909:
1546:
1445:
1387:
1274:
1174:
1133:
774:
730:
595:
591:
412:
has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells's religion."
192:
which said: "In our view, regardless of Wells's religious or philosophical background, his
2381:
2166:
1997:
1978:
1941:
1847:
1819:
1793:
1767:
1744:
1713:
1691:
1672:
1653:
1608:
1452:
1441:
1353:
1339:
1213:
1199:
1068:
1054:
1010:
973:
951:
565:
338:
299:
26:
1470:
1129:
2170:
1434:
1162:
850:
735:
674:
650:
630:
398:
241:
586:
was an experiment that simulated what were believed to be the conditions on the early
2482:
2406:
2350:
2336:
2294:
2122:
1612:
1407:
1313:
1294:
1147:
1014:
757:
726:
513:
342:
249:
175:
1566:
1235:
182:, which is considered by scientists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.
2386:
1588:
870:
841:
701:
and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association.
431:
describes the book as "unlikely even to rate a footnote in the history of piffle".
229:
205:
183:
1332:
1214:
Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong
1047:
2290:
2094:"Pharyngula: Discovery Institute fires its first salvo in the War Against Dodos"
2068:
2031:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003. page 6
1362:
1342:
1107:
1057:
1033:
878:
599:
443:
270:
255:
237:
201:
2396:
1665:
760:
447:
327:
1558:
1399:
1286:
1391:
1278:
809:
278:
162:
97:
1968:
1934:
854:
recalled the DeHart issue saying the video did not tell "the whole truth".
1456:
2263:
2019:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.
2000:
1822:
1796:
1770:
1694:
1646:
670:
427:
was full of fraudulent representations of material in science textbooks.
158:
132:
2185:"Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design"
1840:
Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News
1483:
1633:
Richard Weisenberg, "Challenging ideas against teaching of evolution,"
825:
817:
1637:, Saturday, December 16, 2000 Page: A16 Edition: D Section: EDITORIAL
1138:
1111:
638:
1515:
Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
1429:
729:, just look 'em in the eye and tell them they're full of crap." The
1675:
Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003.
1178:
2247:
587:
459:
785:
The general reader is done a great disservice by this chapter in
637:" and the emergence of "top-down" patterns of emergence of major
262:
makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship", and that "
2305:
1459:
on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
1446:
condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes
2309:
2065:
1039:
Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of
821:
1457:
List of statements from scientific professional organizations
1265:
Scott, E. C. (2001). "EVOLUTION: Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm".
439:
The book has been praised by creationists and fellows of the
236:, who said Wells was "dishonest" with his work and biologist
126:
240:
who said Wells "misused" and "mischaracterized" his work on
1020:
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
1666:
Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas
773:
potential mates" is "widely accepted". Wisker states that
693:
All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited
224:
The members of the scientific community who have reviewed
1422:
List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
1551:
10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0411:IDT]2.0.CO;2
1537:
Pigliucci, Massimo (2001). "intelligent Design Theory".
1444:. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators
1378:
Grant, B. S. (2002). "EVOLUTION: Sour Grapes of Wrath".
1345:. Pratt Tribune. December 2000. Also available from the
1060:. Pratt Tribune. December 2000. Also available from the
877:
board member Bill Buckingham made statements supporting
351:. One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that
1787:
Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II
335:
on broader issues of evolution and intelligent design.
1761:
Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I
1581:"Evolution and Intelligent Design: Pigliucci vs Wells"
820:
walking from left to right, starting with a non-human
798:
The book's title is a reference to the famous picture
2042:"Pharyngula: Exorcising the spectre of Haeckel again"
393:, and PZ Myers. That Wells' doctorate in biology at
153:
argument for the existence of God and fellow of the
2454:
2415:
2369:
2343:
220:
Reception by the scientific community and criticism
124:
112:
104:
92:
84:
74:
64:
54:
46:
36:
1656:Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science
1036:, Professor of Biology at University of Chicago:
697:and poor modern reputation with the set of valid
673:, reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on
232:and misleading readers. This includes biologist
1935:What people are saying about Icons of Evolution
1357:
1037:
1003:
783:
679:
284:Of the Wells' motive, Alan D. Gishlick wrote:
2321:
2155:
2153:
1877:"Princehouse testifies in Freshwater hearing"
1850:, Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007.
1728:Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family
1629:
1627:
1231:
1229:
1227:
1161:Alan D. Gishlick, Kevin Padian (March 2002).
1102:
1100:
893:newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by
881:and objected to proposed use of the textbook
824:on the left, progressing through a series of
8:
1738:Mything the point: Jonathan Wellsâ bad faith
990:
988:
415:In 2009, Patricia Princehouse, Professor at
19:
1716:Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.
976:, Jonathan Wells, 2000 (A reprint from the
947:
945:
943:
941:
2328:
2314:
2306:
939:
937:
935:
933:
931:
929:
927:
925:
923:
921:
25:
18:
2118:
2116:
2114:
1914:. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
1137:
1083:Library journal, Volume 131, Issues 12-15
2224:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
2137:
2135:
2083:Brian Switek. Laelaps, February 7, 2007.
1726:Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
906:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
858:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
464:
917:
846:media campaigns claiming discrimination
690:unambiguous repudiation of his ideas.
186:and Alan D. Gishlick wrote a review in
1365:, letter to the editor, Pratt Tribune.
1195:
1184:
641:. He said that disagreements between
149:, an advocate of the pseudoscientific
2146:National Center for Science Education
1310:"LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading"
956:National Center for Science Education
198:National Center for Science Education
7:
1482:Crews, Frederick (October 4, 2001).
322:to refuting each point presented in
20:Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth
2123:Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches
1860:The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells
844:, one of the Discovery Institute's
375:, wrote an open letter to Wells in
2282:No Icons of Evolution: A Review of
2250:– Official website from the
1883:. January 10, 2009. Archived from
1587:. January 14, 2005. Archived from
1308:Grant, Bruce (December 13, 2000).
395:University of California, Berkeley
14:
2257:
2241:
1944:Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.
1471:intelligent design is not science
421:Mount Vernon City School District
371:Richard Weisenberg, biologist at
2258:Critical of 'Icons of Evolution'
2192:University of Montana Law Review
816:in 1965 and shows a sequence of
353:Haeckel forged images of embryos
157:, in which Wells criticizes the
2351:Overview, ecology, and genetics
2242:Supporting 'Icons of Evolution'
1697:. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.
1252:A Response to Published Reviews
417:Case Western Reserve University
214:A Response to Published Reviews
1:
2431:Melanism: Evolution in Action
2300:Selection of critical reviews
1969:What people are saying about
629:in biology textbooks, though
1489:The New York Review of Books
1430:Dissent From Darwin Petition
1428:. The Discovery Institute's
658:", but rather as summaries.
620:
584:Miller–Urey experiment
578:Miller–Urey experiment
493:Homology in vertebrate limbs
472:Miller–Urey experiment
305:The New York Review of Books
277:"rests entirely on a flawed
204:reviewed Wells' work in the
1991:Wells and Haeckel's Embryos
1685:Textbooks and Haeckel again
1492:. Vol. 48, no. 15
1426:Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
1347:Pratt Tribune's pay archive
1171:Quarterly Review of Biology
1062:Pratt Tribune's pay archive
1000:College of William and Mary
777:among finch species on the
625:Wells discussed the use of
212:, and Wells responded with
189:Quarterly Review of Biology
2520:
2284:by evolutionary biologist
2029:Response to Oral Testimony
2017:Response to Oral Testimony
1647:Letter to Judith P. Fowler
1618:Creationism's Trojan Horse
998:, Professor of Biology at
864:Dover Area School District
707:Holt, Rinehart and Winston
391:Texas Citizens for Science
348:Creationism's Trojan Horse
2424:The Evolution of Melanism
2291:Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm
2142:Icon 7 â Darwin's Finches
435:Reception by creationists
378:The Philadelphia Inquirer
24:
2504:Regnery Publishing books
2499:Intelligent design books
1813:PZ Myers is such a LIAR!
1163:"The Talented Mr. Wells"
1112:"Creationism by Stealth"
889:. The story appeared in
836:In 2002, a video titled
267:biased editorializing".
2370:Writers and researchers
2264:Icons of Evolution FAQs
1484:"Saving Us From Darwin"
1392:10.1126/science.1073593
1279:10.1126/science.1060716
1255:by Jonathan Wells, 2002
808:, was published in the
747:
720:To Wells' assertion in
665:
359:'fudged', as biologist
345:discuss Wells' book in
248:, instead seeing it as
2494:English-language books
2489:2002 non-fiction books
1368:
1194:Cite journal requires
1046:
1008:
967:Survival of the Fakest
791:
703:
574:any of the textbooks.
296:
16:Book by Jonathan Wells
2183:Irons, Peter (2007).
1906:Hitchens, Christopher
1635:Philadelphia Inquirer
1217:by Alan D. Gishlick (
875:"six day" creationist
656:evidence of evolution
647:molecular phylogenies
621:Darwin's tree of life
453:
286:
2229:(page 1 of decision)
2144:, Alan D. Gishlick,
2081:It burns⌠it burns!!
2007:, February 15, 2007.
1829:, November 3, 2006.
1803:, January 25, 2007.
1777:, January 24, 2007.
1707:The new Monkey Trial
1333:Letter to the editor
1273:(5525): 2257aâ2258.
1086:. 2006. p. 45.
1048:Letter to the editor
614:Of Pandas and People
429:Christopher Hitchens
316:devoted part of his
2268:TalkOrigins Archive
2252:Discovery Institute
2198:(1). Archived from
2160:Not the Whole Truth
2127:TalkOrigins Archive
1958:Discovery Institute
1887:on January 15, 2009
1864:Discovery Institute
1240:TalkOrigins Archive
1130:2001Natur.410..745C
952:Icons of Evolution?
895:Discovery Institute
862:At meetings of the
804:. This drawing, by
441:Discovery Institute
410:Discovery Institute
210:Icon of Obfuscation
180:theory of evolution
155:Discovery Institute
21:
2438:Icons of Evolution
2377:Bernard Kettlewell
2248:Icons of Evolution
2165:2007-09-30 at the
1996:2007-02-18 at the
1981:, official website
1977:2007-06-29 at the
1971:Icons of Evolution
1940:2007-06-29 at the
1846:2012-05-07 at the
1818:2012-01-25 at the
1792:2012-02-01 at the
1766:2011-12-26 at the
1743:2015-09-24 at the
1712:2006-06-30 at the
1690:2007-02-17 at the
1671:2007-09-28 at the
1652:2005-05-06 at the
1585:Uncommon Knowledge
1451:2006-01-15 at the
1440:2002-11-13 at the
1352:2003-10-11 at the
1338:2013-01-16 at the
1110:(April 12, 2001).
1090:Icons of Evolution
1067:2003-10-11 at the
1053:2013-01-16 at the
979:American Spectator
972:2006-12-05 at the
954:Alan D. Gishlick.
900:Icons of Evolution
867:Board of Education
838:Icons Of Evolution
787:Icons of Evolution
752:In the chapter on
715:Holt Biology Texas
711:Holt Biology Texas
635:Cambrian Explosion
627:phylogenetic trees
604:Icons of Evolution
600:chemical evolution
402:Unification Church
387:Steven Schafersman
333:Uncommon Knowledge
324:Icons of Evolution
260:Icons of Evolution
226:Icons of Evolution
194:Icons of Evolution
168:American Spectator
151:intelligent design
142:Icons of Evolution
69:Regnery Publishing
59:Intelligent design
2476:
2475:
2463:The Peppered Moth
2286:Massimo Pigliucci
2277:Massimo Pigliucci
2005:Pharyngula (blog)
1921:978-1-74175-222-9
1881:Mount Vernon News
1749:The Panda's Thumb
1747:John S. Wilkins.
1519:(Sinauer, 2002):
1510:Massimo Pigliucci
1435:firmly rejects ID
1386:(5583): 940â941.
1041:these experiments
887:Kenneth R. Miller
806:Rudolph Zallinger
801:March of Progress
779:GalĂĄpagos Islands
675:Haeckel's embryos
666:Haeckel's embryos
571:
570:
566:Hominid evolution
503:Haeckel's embryos
419:, testified in a
373:Temple University
361:Massimo Pigliucci
319:Denying Evolution
314:Massimo Pigliucci
246:scientific theory
138:
137:
85:Publication place
2511:
2468:Margaret Drabble
2445:Of Moths and Men
2330:
2323:
2316:
2307:
2302:from Don Lindsay
2231:
2220:
2214:
2213:
2211:
2210:
2204:
2189:
2180:
2174:
2169:, Roger Downey,
2157:
2148:
2139:
2130:
2120:
2109:
2108:
2106:
2105:
2096:. Archived from
2090:
2084:
2078:
2072:
2063:
2057:
2056:
2054:
2053:
2044:. Archived from
2038:
2032:
2026:
2020:
2014:
2008:
1988:
1982:
1966:
1960:
1951:
1945:
1932:
1926:
1925:
1911:God is not Great
1902:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1892:
1873:
1867:
1857:
1851:
1836:
1830:
1810:
1804:
1784:
1778:
1758:
1752:
1735:
1729:
1723:
1717:
1704:
1698:
1682:
1676:
1663:
1657:
1644:
1638:
1631:
1622:
1621:. 2004, page 105
1606:
1600:
1599:
1597:
1596:
1591:on March 8, 2008
1577:
1571:
1570:
1534:
1528:
1507:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1479:
1473:
1466:
1460:
1418:
1412:
1411:
1375:
1369:
1330:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1262:
1256:
1248:
1242:
1238:by Nick Matzke.
1233:
1222:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1197:
1192:
1190:
1182:
1158:
1152:
1151:
1141:
1139:10.1038/35071144
1104:
1095:
1094:
1078:
1072:
1030:
1024:
1023:. 2004, page 111
992:
983:
964:
958:
949:
873:, in June 2004,
754:Darwin's finches
748:Darwin's finches
739:
535:Darwin's finches
465:
399:Sun Myung Moon's
358:
176:pseudoscientific
128:
76:Publication date
29:
22:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2472:
2450:
2411:
2365:
2339:
2334:
2260:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2221:
2217:
2208:
2206:
2202:
2187:
2182:
2181:
2177:
2167:Wayback Machine
2158:
2151:
2140:
2133:
2121:
2112:
2103:
2101:
2092:
2091:
2087:
2079:
2075:
2064:
2060:
2051:
2049:
2040:
2039:
2035:
2027:
2023:
2015:
2011:
1998:Wayback Machine
1989:
1985:
1979:Wayback Machine
1967:
1963:
1952:
1948:
1942:Wayback Machine
1933:
1929:
1922:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1890:
1888:
1875:
1874:
1870:
1858:
1854:
1848:Wayback Machine
1837:
1833:
1820:Wayback Machine
1811:
1807:
1794:Wayback Machine
1785:
1781:
1768:Wayback Machine
1759:
1755:
1751:March 30, 2004.
1745:Wayback Machine
1736:
1732:
1724:
1720:
1714:Wayback Machine
1705:
1701:
1692:Wayback Machine
1683:
1679:
1673:Wayback Machine
1664:
1660:
1654:Wayback Machine
1645:
1641:
1632:
1625:
1609:Barbara Forrest
1607:
1603:
1594:
1592:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1508:
1504:
1495:
1493:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1467:
1463:
1453:Wayback Machine
1442:Wayback Machine
1419:
1415:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1354:Wayback Machine
1340:Wayback Machine
1331:
1327:
1318:
1316:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1249:
1245:
1234:
1225:
1211:
1207:
1193:
1183:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1124:(6830): 745â6.
1106:
1105:
1098:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1069:Wayback Machine
1055:Wayback Machine
1031:
1027:
1011:Barbara Forrest
993:
986:
974:Wayback Machine
965:
961:
950:
919:
915:
860:
834:
796:
750:
733:
668:
651:common ancestry
623:
590:and tested the
580:
456:
437:
389:, President of
356:
339:Barbara Forrest
300:Frederick Crews
230:misquoting them
222:
93:Media type
77:
32:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2517:
2515:
2507:
2506:
2501:
2496:
2491:
2481:
2480:
2474:
2473:
2471:
2470:
2458:
2456:
2455:Creative works
2452:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2441:
2434:
2427:
2419:
2417:
2413:
2412:
2410:
2409:
2404:
2402:Jonathan Wells
2399:
2394:
2389:
2384:
2379:
2373:
2371:
2367:
2366:
2364:
2363:
2361:Experiments on
2358:
2353:
2347:
2345:
2341:
2340:
2335:
2333:
2332:
2325:
2318:
2310:
2304:
2303:
2297:
2288:
2279:
2270:
2259:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2243:
2240:
2238:
2237:External links
2235:
2233:
2232:
2215:
2175:
2173:, May 15, 2002
2171:Seattle Weekly
2149:
2131:
2110:
2085:
2073:
2066:Flock of Dodos
2058:
2033:
2021:
2009:
1983:
1961:
1946:
1927:
1920:
1897:
1868:
1852:
1831:
1805:
1779:
1753:
1730:
1718:
1699:
1677:
1658:
1639:
1623:
1601:
1572:
1529:
1502:
1474:
1461:
1413:
1370:
1325:
1300:
1257:
1243:
1223:
1205:
1196:|journal=
1179:10.1086/339201
1153:
1096:
1073:
1025:
984:
959:
916:
914:
911:
859:
856:
851:Seattle Weekly
833:
830:
795:
792:
749:
746:
736:Flock of Dodos
667:
664:
631:Charles Darwin
622:
619:
579:
576:
569:
568:
563:
559:
558:
553:
549:
548:
542:
538:
537:
532:
528:
527:
522:
518:
517:
510:
506:
505:
500:
496:
495:
490:
486:
485:
479:
475:
474:
469:
455:
452:
436:
433:
397:was funded by
242:peppered moths
221:
218:
147:Jonathan Wells
136:
135:
130:
122:
121:
116:
110:
109:
106:
102:
101:
94:
90:
89:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
72:
71:
66:
62:
61:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
41:Jonathan Wells
38:
34:
33:
30:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2516:
2505:
2502:
2500:
2497:
2495:
2492:
2490:
2487:
2486:
2484:
2469:
2465:
2464:
2460:
2459:
2457:
2453:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2440:
2439:
2435:
2433:
2432:
2428:
2426:
2425:
2421:
2420:
2418:
2414:
2408:
2407:Judith Hooper
2405:
2403:
2400:
2398:
2395:
2393:
2390:
2388:
2385:
2383:
2380:
2378:
2375:
2374:
2372:
2368:
2362:
2359:
2357:
2354:
2352:
2349:
2348:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2337:Peppered moth
2331:
2326:
2324:
2319:
2317:
2312:
2311:
2308:
2301:
2298:
2296:
2295:Eugenie Scott
2292:
2289:
2287:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2274:
2271:
2269:
2265:
2262:
2261:
2253:
2249:
2246:
2245:
2236:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2219:
2216:
2205:on 2007-12-01
2201:
2197:
2193:
2186:
2179:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2161:
2156:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2125:Dave Wisker.
2124:
2119:
2117:
2115:
2111:
2100:on 2007-02-10
2099:
2095:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2077:
2074:
2070:
2067:
2062:
2059:
2048:on 2007-02-13
2047:
2043:
2037:
2034:
2030:
2025:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1992:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1965:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1936:
1931:
1928:
1923:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1901:
1898:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1872:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1856:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1817:
1814:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1788:
1783:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1693:
1689:
1686:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1648:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1614:
1613:Paul R. Gross
1610:
1605:
1602:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1525:0-87893-659-9
1522:
1518:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1503:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1417:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1364:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1329:
1326:
1315:
1314:Pratt Tribune
1311:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1201:
1188:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1113:
1109:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1091:
1085:
1084:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1035:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1016:
1015:Paul R. Gross
1012:
1007:
1001:
997:
991:
989:
985:
981:
980:
975:
971:
968:
963:
960:
957:
953:
948:
946:
944:
942:
940:
938:
936:
934:
932:
930:
928:
926:
924:
922:
918:
912:
910:
908:
907:
901:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
865:
857:
855:
853:
852:
847:
843:
839:
831:
829:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
794:Cover picture
793:
790:
788:
782:
780:
776:
775:hybridization
772:
767:
762:
759:
758:ornithologist
755:
745:
741:
738:
737:
732:
728:
727:Ernst Haeckel
723:
718:
716:
712:
708:
702:
700:
696:
691:
687:
684:
678:
676:
672:
663:
659:
657:
652:
648:
644:
643:morphological
640:
636:
632:
628:
618:
616:
615:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
577:
575:
567:
564:
561:
560:
557:
556:Fossil horses
554:
551:
550:
547:
543:
540:
539:
536:
533:
530:
529:
526:
525:Peppered moth
523:
520:
519:
516:
515:
514:Archaeopteryx
511:
508:
507:
504:
501:
498:
497:
494:
491:
488:
487:
484:
480:
477:
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
463:
461:
454:Wells's icons
451:
449:
445:
442:
434:
432:
430:
426:
423:hearing that
422:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
380:
379:
374:
369:
367:
362:
354:
350:
349:
344:
343:Paul R. Gross
340:
336:
334:
329:
325:
321:
320:
315:
310:
307:
306:
301:
295:
292:
285:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
251:
250:pseudoscience
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
219:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
185:
181:
177:
172:
170:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:is a book by
144:
143:
134:
131:
129:
123:
120:
119:0-89526-200-2
117:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
88:United States
87:
83:
79:
73:
70:
67:
63:
60:
57:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
28:
23:
2461:
2443:
2437:
2436:
2429:
2422:
2387:Cyril Clarke
2382:Mike Majerus
2356:Evolution of
2222:
2218:
2207:. Retrieved
2200:the original
2195:
2191:
2178:
2102:. Retrieved
2098:the original
2088:
2076:
2061:
2050:. Retrieved
2046:the original
2036:
2024:
2012:
1986:
1970:
1964:
1949:
1930:
1910:
1900:
1889:. Retrieved
1885:the original
1871:
1855:
1839:
1834:
1808:
1782:
1756:
1733:
1721:
1702:
1680:
1661:
1642:
1616:
1604:
1593:. Retrieved
1589:the original
1575:
1542:
1538:
1532:
1527:page 252-264
1513:
1505:
1494:. Retrieved
1487:
1477:
1464:
1416:
1383:
1379:
1373:
1361:
1358:
1328:
1317:. Retrieved
1303:
1270:
1266:
1260:
1251:
1246:
1212:
1208:
1187:cite journal
1166:
1156:
1121:
1115:
1108:Coyne, Jerry
1089:
1087:
1082:
1076:
1038:
1028:
1018:
1004:
977:
962:
904:
899:
882:
871:Pennsylvania
861:
849:
842:Roger DeHart
837:
835:
813:
799:
797:
786:
784:
770:
765:
751:
742:
734:
721:
719:
714:
710:
704:
699:observations
698:
694:
692:
688:
682:
680:
669:
660:
624:
612:
609:
603:
581:
572:
544:Four-winged
512:
483:tree of life
457:
438:
424:
414:
384:
376:
370:
365:
346:
337:
323:
317:
311:
303:
297:
290:
287:
283:
274:
269:
263:
259:
254:
225:
223:
213:
209:
206:talk.origins
193:
187:
184:Kevin Padian
173:
166:
141:
140:
139:
80:January 2002
2392:Bruce Grant
2069:Randy Olson
1363:Jerry Coyne
1343:Jerry Coyne
1058:Jerry Coyne
1034:Jerry Coyne
996:Bruce Grant
891:York County
885:written by
879:creationism
731:documentary
546:fruit flies
444:Dean Kenyon
406:objectivity
271:Jerry Coyne
256:Nick Matzke
238:Jerry Coyne
234:Bruce Grant
202:Nick Matzke
2483:Categories
2397:E. B. Ford
2209:2009-11-05
2104:2007-02-12
2052:2007-02-12
1954:Paul Chien
1891:2009-01-17
1827:Pharyngula
1801:Pharyngula
1775:Pharyngula
1595:2008-07-17
1545:(5): 411.
1539:BioScience
1496:2008-05-17
1319:2007-05-17
913:References
761:David Lack
598:model for
448:Paul Chien
328:BioScience
1862:from the
1559:0006-3568
1408:161367302
1400:0036-8075
1295:153963713
1287:0036-8075
1148:205015816
814:Early Man
810:Time-Life
771:recognize
705:In 2003,
677:, wrote:
649:disprove
481:Darwin's
312:In 2002,
298:Likewise
279:syllogism
163:evolution
98:Paperback
65:Publisher
2163:Archived
2001:PZ Myers
1994:Archived
1975:Archived
1938:Archived
1908:(2007).
1844:Archived
1823:PZ Myers
1816:Archived
1797:PZ Myers
1790:Archived
1771:PZ Myers
1764:Archived
1741:Archived
1710:Archived
1695:PZ Myers
1688:Archived
1669:Archived
1650:Archived
1567:86656628
1449:Archived
1438:Archived
1420:See: 1)
1350:Archived
1336:Archived
1219:PDF here
1065:Archived
1051:Archived
1032:Quoting
994:Quoting
970:Archived
826:hominids
818:primates
695:theories
671:PZ Myers
216:(2002).
208:article
159:paradigm
133:49218581
47:Language
2344:Biology
2266:at the
1380:Science
1267:Science
1126:Bibcode
883:Biology
596:Haldane
594:–
96:Print (
55:Subject
50:English
2129:, 2002
1918:
1565:
1557:
1523:
1406:
1398:
1293:
1285:
1146:
1117:Nature
848:. The
602:. In
592:Oparin
273:wrote
37:Author
2416:Works
2203:(PDF)
2188:(PDF)
1563:S2CID
1404:S2CID
1291:S2CID
1169:(1).
1144:S2CID
869:, in
832:Video
812:book
722:Icons
639:phyla
588:Earth
460:icons
425:Icons
294:work.
291:Icons
275:Icons
264:Icons
105:Pages
31:Cover
1916:ISBN
1611:and
1555:ISSN
1521:ISBN
1396:ISSN
1283:ISSN
1200:help
1013:and
645:and
582:The
446:and
341:and
127:OCLC
114:ISBN
2466:by
2293:by
2275:by
1547:doi
1424:2)
1388:doi
1384:297
1275:doi
1271:292
1175:doi
1134:doi
1122:410
1009:in
822:ape
766:was
683:not
562:10
302:of
161:of
108:338
2485::
2227:,
2196:68
2194:.
2190:.
2152:^
2134:^
2113:^
2003:.
1956:,
1879:.
1825:,
1799:,
1773:,
1626:^
1615:.
1583:.
1561:.
1553:.
1543:51
1541:.
1512:.
1486:.
1455:.
1402:.
1394:.
1382:.
1356:.
1312:.
1289:.
1281:.
1269:.
1226:^
1191::
1189:}}
1185:{{
1173:.
1167:77
1165:.
1142:.
1132:.
1120:.
1114:.
1099:^
1017:.
1002::
987:^
920:^
552:9
541:8
531:7
521:6
509:5
499:4
489:3
478:2
468:1
450:.
366:do
252:.
2329:e
2322:t
2315:v
2212:.
2107:.
2071:.
2055:.
1924:.
1894:.
1866:.
1598:.
1569:.
1549::
1517:.
1499:.
1410:.
1390::
1322:.
1297:.
1277::
1221:)
1202:)
1198:(
1181:.
1177::
1150:.
1136::
1128::
1071:.
982:)
357:"
100:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
