1. dispatches
  2. "Evidence Against Evolution"

"Evidence Against Evolution"

By stcynic on August 10, 2005.

Last evening, Genie Scott was on Hardball on MSNBC along with Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute. Chapman offered the standard argument that the DI doesn't want ID taught, but only wants the "evidence against evolution" taught in schools. But when challenged to name that evidence against evolution, he immediately mentioned Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution. Wells' book, which claims that science textbooks distort the evidence for evolution, is instead a perfect example of how to distort that evidence. It's a highly dishonest book. Here are three links to excellent refutations of Wells' claims in this book.

The TalkOrigins FAQs on Icons of Evolution.

Alan Gishlick's chapter by chapter refutation.

The New Mexicans for Science and Reason webpage on the book.

Tags
Intelligent Design

More like this

Fisking McDowell on Evolution
I don't know how, but I somehow managed to get on the mailing list of the Christian Worldview Network and I get their emails regularly. Most recently, I was sent a link to this ridiculous article from Sean McDowell (Josh McDowell's son, I imagine) about evolution. It's probably not worth fisking,…
Eight Days to Go: More on Jonathan Wells
One of the things I have tried to do, as a journalist who's been cast in the role of a defender of science ever since the publication of The Republican War on Science, is to take on some of the attackers. That's why I agreed to debate Jonathan Wells this coming Tuesday night, and it's why I have…
“Explore Evolution”—displacing good science with 'dumbed-down' creationism
The various ID blogs are all atwitter over the new textbook the Discovery Institute is going to be peddling, Explore Evolution. I've seen a copy, but I'm not going to give an extensive review just yet. I will say that it's taking a slightly different tack to avoid the court challenges. It does not…
Wells’ false accusation against Randy Olson
The Discovery Institute is stepping up their smear campaign against Randy Olson and Flock of Dodos, and the biggest issue they can find is their continued revivification of Haeckel's biogenetic law. They've put up a bogus complaint that Olson was lying in the movie, a complaint that does not hold…

Last time I looked, there was no evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution. The evidence for the theory might be incomplete, but that's a different matter, and should be recognized as such.

I saw this segment last night. The part I thought was the most outrageous was when David Gregory (the guy filling in for Matthews) kept excitedly interrupting Chapman with the question "yeah, but do you think ID is a THEORY?" The way he was trying to get Chapman to answer, I figured Gregory knew it wasn't a theory and was ready to hammer him good if he said yes. Finally, Chapman says "Yes, I do think it is a theory" and Gregory says "Oh" and then just goes on to the next question. I was very disappointed. Of course, I was just as disappointed in Scott, who should have taken that one and knocked it out of the park. She didn't even touch it. Maybe Gregory was trying to set her up and she wiffed an easy one. Not sure.

In any case, the way the debate is portrayed on TV makes me want to vomit.

What's more (and perhaps goes without saying), "Icons" isn't so much evidence *against* evolution, as it is an attempt to impeach the credibility of evolution (specifically, how it is taught in schools).

Evidence against evolution ought to include alternative explanations for observed phenomena (such as documents showing the Galapagos Islands are a major hoax, or something).

ID, in its heart, does have alternative explanations -- but we all know why they can't be spoken of in mixed company.