|
''Icons of Evolution'' is a book by Jonathan Wells, an intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, which also includes a 2002 video companion. In the book, Wells criticized the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught.〔(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' conclusions.〔Quoting Dr 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 111〕〔Quoting Dr. 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 ).〕 Some in the scientific community have criticized the book and regard it as pseudoscientific. It 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 biologists 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 design〔See: 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."〔(Creationism by Stealth ) Jerry Coyne. Answers In Science, Tufts University.〕 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): ISBN 0-87893-659-9 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,〔(Letter to Judith P. Fowler ) Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science 〕〔(Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas ) 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 Church〔(The 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". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Icons of Evolution」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|