Has anyone had a chance to read this book yet?

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
by Jonathan Wells

It discusses the current common laymen arguments of evolutionary theory, as presented in school textbooks, and how they are supposedly fakes or misconceptions. It's a stab at evolution, but not the typical ID/creation science arguments.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895262762/qid=1039920818/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5778209-4832862?v=glance&s=books

I quote one of the reviews on Amazon:

I must admit that reading this book was somewhat shocking. I had expected to see rehashed creationist arguments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. On the contrary, nothing Wells says depends on creationist ideas. He has collected evidence from the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and combined them into a compelling case against what we might call "textbook Darwinism." This might be a trivial accomplishment, since the record of high school and college textbooks is generally dismal. But his cumulative argument seems to me devastating to orthodox Neo-Darwinism, since it just is textbook Darwinism. Wells discusses the famous comparative vertebrate embryo diagrams-- which should be an embarrassment to any textbook author who includes them--the fallacious way homology is used for evidence of common ancestry, the collapse of the story of Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, and many more pieces of the Darwinist lore. By the time I was finished, I had lost faith in almost everything I thought I knew about evolution. I now suspect that Darwin will soon join company with Marx and Freud.

I'm not sure what I believe at this point, but I can no longer buy the official story. I don't know if I agree with some of Wells' recommendations in his conclusion, but something clearly has to be done. Hysterical defenses of falsified "evidence" by Darwinian disciples at Talk.Origins and elsewhere convinces me that they didn't see this coming, and won't be able to deal with the actual facts involved.

I only skimmed through the text at the bookstore, but what I read gave me a similar reaction as the reviewer above.

Why doctor evidence if there's no competition in theory? What's wrong with teaching children that we DON'T have all the answers, and science isn't a perfect procedure? Isn't it better to teach how science works, moreso than to provide canned "facts"?

While I'm not convinced yet that what this book says is true, I am sure of the overlying premise that students are taught just enough to get by, glazing over the details and procedures of how and why we learn things.

In fact, at this point I'd welcome ID and any other theories alongside evolution, and have the lesson be to show what is and isn't valid science, which in my mind is more important than the facts of the theory themselves.

The old give a fish vs. teach fishing thing...

(BTW, I didn't know if this should fall under human science or science ethics, since really both are in question)

Icons of evolution: all those who do stupid things and get themselves removed from the genepool (ie: darwin awards)

Looking through it seems like a good book to me. Easy to read, flows well (unlike a lot of books) and is from a standpoint which Neville likes very much :D

Isn't Jonathan Wells a member of the Unification Church?

That's one of the critic's points, Evilpoet, that he was hired by a church to write the book. While suspicious, if what he writes is correct, it really doesn't matter who he is.

Again, I only skimmed through it, but I didn't really see any push towards ID or creation science. It seemed to be for the most part a critique on evolution as taught in schools. If valid, it's yet more proof that U.S. schools are sadly lacking.

A side question: I homeschool, and while I've a few years before I have to even consider touching biology, I'm thinking that it might be a better approach to teach science methodology before facts, just as you teach math. Learn the tools first.

By Jaxom: That's one of the critic's points, Evilpoet, that he was hired by a church to write the book. While suspicious, if what he writes is correct, it really doesn't matter who he is. Exactly! If whats being written is correct what would it matter?

Jaxom,

I have never read the book so I don't feel I can comment as
far as that goes. I would like to read more of what the critics
have to say - any suggestions of where I can do that?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0895262762/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-5778209-4832862

has all the Amazon reviews.

There's no denying that the attack on school textbooks is probably a legitimate one. But whether or not the hard science behind the simpler explanations is faulty, I can't say at this point. I guess I'll have to buy the book and follow up on the references to figure it out myself. It's quite possible this is just the next stage of creationist attacks, steering the questionable parts of the science or the harder to understand parts, and making them seem invalid. I certainly hope so, because the alternative is bad science, or a least bad presentation of science.