Icons of Evolution is a book by Jonathan Wells, an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design argument for the existence of God and fellow of the Discovery Institute, in which Wells criticizes the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. The book includes a 2002 video companion.Icons of Evolution? Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education In 2000, Wells summarized the book's contents in an article in the American Spectator.Survival of the Fakest , Jonathan Wells, 2000 (A reprint from the American Spectator) 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.Quoting Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology at College of William and Mary: in Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. 2004, page 111Quoting Jerry Coyne, Professor of Biology at University of Chicago: Letter to the editor Jerry Coyne. Pratt Tribune. December 2000. Also available from the Pratt Tribune's pay archive .
The book was criticised for its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled, and its conclusions as to the evidential status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by scientists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology. Kevin Padian and Alan D. Gishlick wrote a review in Quarterly Review of Biology which said: "In our view, regardless of Wells's religious or philosophical background, his Icons of Evolution can scarcely be considered a work of scholarly integrity." 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."Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick (PDF here) Nick Matzke reviewed Wells' work in the talk.origins article Icon of Obfuscation,Icon of Obfuscation: Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong by Nick Matzke. TalkOrigins Archive and Wells responded with A Response to Published Reviews (2002).A Response to Published Reviews by Jonathan Wells, 2002
Reception by the scientific community and criticism The members of the scientific community who 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. This includes biologist Bruce Grant, who said Wells was "dishonest" with his work and biologist Jerry Coyne who said Wells "misused" and "mischaracterized" his work on peppered moths.Letter to the editor Jerry Coyne. Pratt Tribune. December 2000. Also available from the Pratt Tribune's pay archive . Specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent designSee: 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. as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience.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
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".
Jerry Coyne wrote Icons "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."
Of the Wells' motive, 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...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. Likewise Frederick Crews of The New York Review of Books 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."
In 2002, Massimo Pigliucci devoted part of his Denying Evolution to refuting each point presented in Icons of Evolution.Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): page 252-264 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 BioScience 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 Uncommon Knowledge on broader issues of evolution and intelligent design.
Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross discuss Wells' book in Creationism's Trojan Horse. One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that Haeckel forged images of embryos that are allegedly still in biology books. Forrest and Gross noted that Haeckel's, "a conservative Christian youth", work was fudged', as biologist Massimo Pigliucci 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, do look remarkably alike, pretty much, but not exactly, as Haeckel figured them in some of his drawings"(emphasis in original)."Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Creationism's Trojan Horse. 2004, page 105
Richard Weisenberg, biologist at Temple University, wrote an open letter to Wells in The Philadelphia Inquirer 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."Richard Weisenberg, "Challenging ideas against teaching of evolution," Philadelphia Inquirer, Saturday, December 16, 2000 Page: A16 Edition: D Section: EDITORIAL He continued, "I can only conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural selection."
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, Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003. and PZ Myers.Textbooks and Haeckel again PZ Myers. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006. That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification ChurchThe new Monkey Trial Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005. and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family 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.Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.PZ Myers is such a LIAR! PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News , Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007. The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells's religion."The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute.
In 2009, Patricia Princehouse, Professor at Case Western Reserve University, testified in a Mount Vernon City School District hearing that Icons was full of fraudulent representations of material in science textbooks. Christopher Hitchens describes the book as "unlikely even to rate a footnote in the history of piffle".
Reception by creationists The book has been praised by creationists and fellows of the Discovery Institute Dean KenyonWhat people are saying about Icons of Evolution Larry Witham, September 10, 2000. and Paul Chien.Paul Chien, Discovery InstituteWhat people are saying about Icons of Evolution , official website
Wells's icons Wells focused on 10 examples that he said were commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "icons". 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:
1Miller–Urey experiment2Darwin's tree of life3Homology in vertebrate limbs4Haeckel's embryos5Archaeopteryx6Peppered moth7Darwin's finches8Four-winged fruit flies9Fossil horses10Hominid 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. Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in any of the textbooks.
Miller–Urey experiment