While Wells has a PhD in molecular and cell biology, which BTW
nicely fits the requirement of appeal to authority creationists so
love; he also is a part of the Unification Church (since 1974) –
yes Wells is a Moonie. Theologically Wells and Hovind are miles
apart.
In
his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
(2000) Wells
states that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were grossly exaggerated, distorted truth, or were
patently false. Wells said that this shows that evolution conflicts
with the evidence, and so argued against its teaching in public
education.
Father's [Rev. Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
Why was a Hovindite citing a Moonie? Especially when Wells' statement is viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mis-characterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its place. IOWs this lack of objectivity, by Wells, disqualifies any consideration to his views.
Possible original video.
While
I am biased in my opinion of Wells (and his book Icons
by association only – I have never read it nor any of the reviews),
this video, as I mentioned, was presented as evidence against
evolution. So, while I am certain the points presented are PRATTs
let's see what this layman can do in countering the claims. (Note::
Since finishing the basic outline and information gathering
concerning my rebuttals, I have read numerous reviews and critiques
in order to solidify and clarify my thoughts. Some of that
information has made its way into what I present. I have not relied
upon those critiques, IOWs the critiques where not primary sources
for information. There are similarities and overlap, that can't be
avoided seeing how vague the initial video was concerning what Wells
proposes.)
1]
1953 Miller Urey Experiment (:14) According to Wells, M/U was
unrealistic and doesn't say anything substantial about the origin of
life. Wells implies,
the conditions on the early earth were probably nothing like those
used in the experiment and the origin of life remains a mystery.
2]
Tree of Life (:37) Wells considers the ToL as a theoretical
statement and should not be included in text books. He indirectly
implies the "Cambrian Explosion" - that all major animal
groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed - too short
a time period for evolution to occur.
Defining the Cambrian “explosion” is not as straightforward as it might seem. Although there was clearly a major burst of evolutionary innovation and diversification in the first 20 million years or so of the Cambrian, this was preceded by an extended period of about 40 million years during which metazoans (multicellular animals) arose and attained critical levels of anatomical complexity. The Ediacaran saw the appearance of organisms with the fundamental features that would characterize the later Cambrian organisms (such as three tissue layers, and bilaterally symmetric bodies with a mouth and anus), as well as the first representatives of modern phyla. The base of the Cambrian is not marked by a sharp dramatic appearance of living phyla without Precambrian roots. It is a subjectively defined point in a continuum. The Cambrian “explosion” appears to have had a “long fuse.”
4]
Haeckel's Embryos (1:50) Drawings of similarities in vertebrate
embryos are used as evidence for their common ancestry, but
biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are
not most similar in their early stages, and in any event the drawings
are faked.
Evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin (Origin of Species, 1859) is not founded on Haeckel’s observations or theories (Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, 1866; and diagrams 1874). Haeckel did not have any significant input into Origin, but Darwin, among others, did profoundly influence Haeckel. Haeckel’s work Recapitulation Theory which was discredited in the 19th century, and has not been relevant to biology since that time.
And,
5]
Archaeopteryx (2:07) Wells states this fossil is falsely portrayed
as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. I can only
guess at this point but the
suggestion by the term “missing links” implies Wells' objection
is based on an old, largely outdated, view of evolution as a step
ladder, leading from ancestor directly to descendant through a series
of intermediate steps.
As
Stated Casually notes, (Science vs The Ark Encounter: Episode 2 – Archaeopteryx)
Archaeopteryx has been described as a reptile-like bird or bird-like
reptile because they are a transitional genus.
Archaeoptryx displays both bird traits and reptilian traits.
6]
Peppered Moths (2:33) Wells argues pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks are used as evidence for natural
selection, but biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths
don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and in any event all the
pictures have been staged.
Michael Majerus' (Melanism - Evolution in Action, 1998)
In reality, the story of the Peppered Moth is neither "faked" nor "incorrect." It was previously, believed the changes
in the colors of the moths as an example of natural selection in
which the sole factor had
been shown to be predation by birds. Today, it is considered that
the changes in the colors of the moths as an example of natural
selection in which one
factor is predation by
birds.
7]
Darwin's Finches (3:15) According to Wells the actual evidence show that
the beaks can change in a matter of years only based on climate and
diet. The changes are temporary oscillating back and forth. As
evidence for origin of the species, Darwin's
finches dont work.
The four-winged fruit fly is a classic example of how creationists misinterpret the genetic analysis of development. Developmental geneticists try to understand the role of a gene by modifying a gene and analyzing the consequences, so it is of little consequence that four winged flies would not survive in the wild. The importance of the four-winged fruit fly is that it demonstrated that a few mutations in a single gene were able to transform an entire structure,,, These experiments are not meant to show the exact mechanism by which today's biological structures evolution. Laboratory experiments will not perfectly replicate wild conditions, but by considering simpler circumstances, researchers can gain insights into big questions. Lab work like the work described above allows researchers to refine their understanding and move the research to ever-more complex situations, balancing a desire for greater realism for decreased ability to focus on a single factor.
9]
Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution (4:30) In
both cases there is some real evidence, the importance of which is
the heavy dose of philosophy which is laid on the evidence in each
case. Mainly to persuade students that evolution is without
direction or purpose. In the case of the ape-human icon, students
are told that humans are nothing more than animals. Nether one of
those claims comes from the evidence, those are philosophical claims.
But they use the evidence to make the claims appear more
scientific.
According to Nick Matzkel Icon of Obfuscation, Two points should be made about the words like "random" and "undirected," Readers should ask themselves: is the weather "random" and "undirected", or not?
If
yes, according to Wells you are subscribing to "materialistic
philosophy in the guise of empirical science" and we should
expect Wells to write his next book about the dogmatic materialism of
meteorologists (and statisticians, etc.).
If
you think that Wells may be overreacting a wee bit to the
implications of such words then join the club, and consider the
possibility that evolution is "random" and "undirected"
in the very same way that the weather is considered "random"
and "undirected."
Matzkel
also notes Ken Miller's excellent book Finding
Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and
evolution
(1999) which discusses the religious issues surrounding the modern
evolution debate.
Wells has published a second book in 2017, Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution
William Paley, Natural Theology (1801) - the Watchmaker analogy
If not for the shove from Alfred Russel Wallace, we may have been calling it Wallacism instead.
Sources::
Icons of Anti-Evolution The Essays
Icon of Obfuscation - Jonathan Wells's book Icons of
Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is
wrong
Resources::
No comments:
Post a Comment