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

Evolution Education

Last month's issue of Evolution (aka Evolution Int J Org Evolution, aka Evolution (Lawrence Kansas), aka some other confusing way of referring to the journal published by the Society for the Study of Evolution) contains two articles on teaching evolution.

Darwin's Reach

Hofstra University solicits submissions for an interdisciplinary conference titled "Darwin’s Reach: A Celebration of Darwin’s Legacy across Academic Disciplines," to be held March 12-14, 2009.

200 years since Darwin's birth, what about medicine?

Today is Darwin Day. But, more than that, it is a very special Darwin Day in that it is the 200th anniversary of the birth of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin.

What? Only 50 myths?

Over at the Raving Atheist's forum, contributors have compiled a list of 50 evolution myths. It's actually at 51 right now—I could have told them there are a lot more than 50—but it's entertaining.

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.