Misplaced Pages

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:18, 17 February 2007 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 editsm moved Jonathan Corrigan Wells to Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate): 1) Jonathan Wells is never identified as Jonathan Corrigan Wells in print, neither by himself nor by anyone else. 2) Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) is mor← Previous edit Revision as of 18:41, 19 February 2007 edit undoEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
] ]
⚫ '''John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells''', Ph.D., is an author best known for his opposition to the ] on ]. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's ].<ref> Discovery Institute </ref>.
⚫ '''John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells''', Ph.D., is an author, a prominent promoter of ] and an opponent of ], which Wells and other intelligent design proponents often refer to as "]."<ref name="wells_PIGDID">"In order to advance his thesis, Wells has to convey the idea that "Darwinism" pits itself against traditional Christianity: to allow pupils to learn it is to give them up to atheism, decadence, liberalism and to lose the culture war. Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution. In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against "Darwinism", which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn’t exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution. Easily, one of the prominent faults of Wells’s screed is a pervasive confusion between terms. Words, like "Darwinism" and “Traditional Christianity”, seem to mean whatever Wells wants them to mean for that specific sentence. In many cases words are used without regard for his own stated definitions and usually without regard to usage elsewhere in his book. There are several possible reasons for this confusion in terms. First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue. Second, if you review the acknowledgements page, you’ll read how Wells used many authors to help him prepare this text. It is possible that Wells’s editorship was so insufficient that he allowed a term that makes up part of the book’s very title to have a flexible meaning. My suspicion is that there was both disparity between the understanding of key terms by different authors as well as an intention to confuse." {{cite web| url = http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_1.html| title = The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)| accessdate = 2007-02-04| last = Humburg| first = Burt| date = August 26, 2006| work = ]| quote = }}</ref><ref name="Forrest">"As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in William A. Dembski. May 14 2005</ref><ref name="Gross">"In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." {{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Gross | first = Paul R. | authorlink = Paul R. Gross | date = March 2003 | title = Darwinism versus intelligent design | journal = Commentary Magazine | volume = 115 | issue = 3 | pages = | url = http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001692848&er=deny | accessdate = 2007-02-05}}</ref>


⚫ A prominent promoter of ], Wells has made a career out of "destroying ]."<ref name="wells_PIGDID">"In order to advance his thesis, Wells has to convey the idea that "Darwinism" pits itself against traditional Christianity: to allow pupils to learn it is to give them up to atheism, decadence, liberalism and to lose the culture war. Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution. In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against "Darwinism", which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn’t exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution. Easily, one of the prominent faults of Wells’s screed is a pervasive confusion between terms. Words, like "Darwinism" and “Traditional Christianity”, seem to mean whatever Wells wants them to mean for that specific sentence. In many cases words are used without regard for his own stated definitions and usually without regard to usage elsewhere in his book. There are several possible reasons for this confusion in terms. First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue. Second, if you review the acknowledgements page, you’ll read how Wells used many authors to help him prepare this text. It is possible that Wells’s editorship was so insufficient that he allowed a term that makes up part of the book’s very title to have a flexible meaning. My suspicion is that there was both disparity between the understanding of key terms by different authors as well as an intention to confuse." {{cite web| url = http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_1.html| title = The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)| accessdate = 2007-02-04| last = Humburg| first = Burt| date = August 26, 2006| work = ]| quote = }}</ref><ref name="Forrest">"As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in William A. Dembski. May 14 2005</ref><ref name="Gross">"In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." {{cite journal | quotes = no | last = Gross | first = Paul R. | authorlink = Paul R. Gross | date = March 2003 | title = Darwinism versus intelligent design | journal = Commentary Magazine | volume = 115 | issue = 3 | pages = | url = http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001692848&er=deny | accessdate = 2007-02-05}}</ref>
⚫ Wells holds a PhD from ] in Molecular and Cell Biology and a PhD in Religious Studies from ]. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's ].<ref> Discovery Institute </ref>.


Wells questions the teaching of ] in a way that implies outright rejection:
In '']'', Wells argues that "Darwinian theory" conflicts with the evidence and
⚫ strongly challenges the current presentation of ]<ref>"Several of them grossly exaggerate or distort the truth, while others are patently false. Yet they are found year after year in almost all textbooks dealing with evolutionary theory, and they invariably accompany other material promoting that theory. When someone points out that the textbook examples misrepresent the facts, Darwinists don’t rush to correct them. Instead, they rush to defend them." </ref>

Many of Wells views run counter to predominant scientific views. Wells rejects ]:
{{quotation|"Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals...much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?" --Jonathan Wells <cite>]</cite><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/ Introduction, Icons of Evolution] Jonathan Wells.</ref>}} {{quotation|"Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals...much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?" --Jonathan Wells <cite>]</cite><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/ Introduction, Icons of Evolution] Jonathan Wells.</ref>}}
He also rejects the prevailing view of the ] that the human immunodeficiency virus (]) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (]).<ref name=group></ref><ref>"His personal peculiarities include membership in the Moonies and support for AIDS reappraisal - the theory that the HIV is not the primary cause of AIDS" Beth Quittman. Seattlest, September 8, 2006.</ref><ref>"some leading lights of anti-evolution Intelligent Design theory, including ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." Peter McKnight. Originally published in the Vancouver Sun, June 17, 2006.</ref><ref name="science_yet"> Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey. Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 83, Number 1, 2005. (PDF file)</ref> Both intelligent design and ] are considered ] by the ]. He also rejects the prevailing view of the ] that the human immunodeficiency virus (]) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (]).<ref name=group></ref><ref>"His personal peculiarities include membership in the Moonies and support for AIDS reappraisal - the theory that the HIV is not the primary cause of AIDS" Beth Quittman. Seattlest, September 8, 2006.</ref><ref>"some leading lights of anti-evolution Intelligent Design theory, including ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." Peter McKnight. Originally published in the Vancouver Sun, June 17, 2006.</ref><ref name="science_yet"> Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey. Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 83, Number 1, 2005. (PDF file)</ref> Both intelligent design and ] are considered ] by the ].
Line 33: Line 30:


== Opposition to evolution== == Opposition to evolution==
⚫ In '']'', Wells argues that "Darwinian theory" conflicts with the evidence and strongly challenges the current presentation of ]<ref>"Several of them grossly exaggerate or distort the truth, while others are patently false. Yet they are found year after year in almost all textbooks dealing with evolutionary theory, and they invariably accompany other material promoting that theory. When someone points out that the textbook examples misrepresent the facts, Darwinists don’t rush to correct them. Instead, they rush to defend them." </ref>

Of his early student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78) Wells said that "One of the things that Father advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He has since gone on to describe that plan as "To defend and articulate ] especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."<ref> Cornerstone, 1997.</ref> Of his early student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78) Wells said that "One of the things that Father advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He has since gone on to describe that plan as "To defend and articulate ] especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."<ref> Cornerstone, 1997.</ref>


Revision as of 18:41, 19 February 2007

File:Jonwells.jpg
Jonathan Wells

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells, Ph.D., is an author best known for his opposition to the scientific consensus on evolution. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture..

A prominent promoter of intelligent design, Wells has made a career out of "destroying Darwinism."

Wells questions the teaching of evolution in a way that implies outright rejection:

"Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals...much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?" --Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?

He also rejects the prevailing view of the scientific community that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Both intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.

Background

After dropping out of school and driving a taxi in New York City, Wells was drafted into the United States Army, serving from 1964 to 1966. After returning to college (UC Berkelely), he was ordered to reserve duty. By that time a critic of the Vietnam War, he refused to report for duty, and was incarcerated for 18 months in the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas.

In the 1970s Wells joined the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon. Wells graduated from the church's Unification Theological Seminary in 1978 with a Masters in Religious Education.

He has written extensively on Unification theology, and since 1981 has taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary. He then earned a PhD in Religious Studies at Yale University in 1986, and another PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley in 1994.

Wells has said that he was a developmental biology researcher as a post-doctorate candidate at UC Berkeley. His post-doctorate at Berkeley was an unpaid title arranged by former UC Berkeley law professor and father of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson. Shortly after receiving his doctorate Wells joined Johnson at the Discovery Institute.

Wells now serves as a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, hub of the intelligent design movement, and at the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

Opposition to evolution

In Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Wells argues that "Darwinian theory" conflicts with the evidence and strongly challenges the current presentation of evolution in public school science classes

Of his early student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78) Wells said that "One of the things that Father advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He has since gone on to describe that plan as "To defend and articulate Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."

Wells has said that his religious doctoral studies at Yale focused on the "root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine" and encompassed the whole of Christian theology within a focus of Darwinian controversies. He said, "I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design."

Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church funded some of Wells' graduate studies. Wells has said that learning how to "destroy Darwinism," the term he and intelligent design proponents use to mean evolution which is opposed by Moon's Unification Church, was his motive for seeking his second Ph.D. at Berkeley:

"Father'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." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

Wells's statement and others like it 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. Massimo Pigliucci, having debated Wells, said Wells "clearly lied" during his debates and misrepresented his agenda and science. Moreover, Pigliucci wrote Wells simply does not understand some of the theories Wells tries to attack.The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion".

Icons of Evolution

Main article: Icons of Evolution
Icons of Evolution

In 2000, Wells wrote Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community.

On February 12, 2007 Amazon.com listed Icons of Evolution as their 17,651st best selling book.

Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving

In a 2004 paper in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Wells proposed his "Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving" (TOPS), which was intended to provide a mechanism by which intelligent design "could lead to new hypotheses and scientific discoveries". The idea is based on two fundamental assumptions, that "Darwinian evolution" is false, and that intelligent design is true. Rather than seeking experimental verification for intelligent design, TOPS "explore what happens when ID rather than evolutionary theory is used as a framework to ask research questions".

In the paper, Wells sought to apply this to cancer and centrioles. Wells stated that "cancer is not correlated with any consistent pattern of DNA mutations, but it is correlated with abnormalities at the chromosomal level -- a phenomenon called "chromosomal instability", and that many researchers see cancer as a "centrosomal disease" rather than a DNA disease. This led him to centrioles. Since centrioles look like turbines under electron microscopy, Wells used the TOPS metholody to conclude that "if centrioles look like turbines they might actually be turbines".

In response to Wells's assertion that cancer was a disease of chromosomal instability and not genes, Ian Musgrave, writing in the The Panda's Thumb replied that "this knowledge seems to have eluded most researchers in the field" and pointed out that where chromosomal translocations underlying cancer, "chromosomal instability can be traced to a mutation in a single gene".

Centrioles

Using the TOPS methodology, which assumes that intelligent design is true and "Darwinian evolution" is false, Wells revisited the issue of centrioles in a 2005 paper entitled "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum. Wells's paper "assumes that are holistically designed to be turbines", and goes on to develop a hypothesis of how they work. The Discovery Institute lists this paper as a "featured article" on their list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design." This has been challenged by History and Philosophy of Science professor John M. Lynch, who points out that Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is edited by Italian creationist Giuseppe Sermonti and largley publishes only research outside the general scientific consensus. Lynch said of Rivista: "While there may be interesting ideas here, there is no indication that they represent mainstream thought in biology. And while this might be an 'internationally respected biology journal' within certain (anti-Darwinian) communities, it cannot be considered so among the majority." and "the influence of Rivista, we see that - as one would expect from the above - the journal is of negligible importance at best ... in the case of Rivista could not reasonable be called 'internationally respected'." The Discovery Institute's statement that Wells's paper is a peer reviewed article published in scientific journal runs counter to the testimony of intelligent design proponent Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the judge's findings and ruling.

Kansas evolution hearings

Also in 2005, Wells attended the Kansas evolution hearings, which were boycotted by mainstream scientists. Wells said, "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence." When questioned about the age of the earth, he replied, "I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. ... But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence."

Prior to the evolution hearings, in December 2000 after the Pratt County, Kansas school board revised its tenth-grade biology curriculum at the urging of intelligent design proponents to include material that encourages students to question the theory of evolution, the Pratt Tribune published a letter from Jerry Coyne challenging Wells's characterization in an article of his work on peppered moths, saying that his article appended to the Pratt standards was misused and being mischaracterized:

"Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. ... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. ... It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory." -- Jerry Coyne, letter to the editor, Pratt Tribune.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

Main article: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

In 2006 Wells published his second major book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book was praised by Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, but was described by Reed Cartwright of Panda's Thumb as being "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally."

AIDS reappraisal

Wells, along with fellow Discovery Institute member Phillip E. Johnson, questions the mainstream scientific view that HIV has been conclusively proved to be the sole cause of AIDS and signed the The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis AIDS reappraisal petition calling for a "reappraisal of the evidence" for the connection between HIV and AIDS.

Publications

Articles in peer-reviewed journals

Books

References

  1. Biography, Jonathan Wells Discovery Institute
  2. ^ "In order to advance his thesis, Wells has to convey the idea that "Darwinism" pits itself against traditional Christianity: to allow pupils to learn it is to give them up to atheism, decadence, liberalism and to lose the culture war. Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution. In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against "Darwinism", which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn’t exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution. Easily, one of the prominent faults of Wells’s screed is a pervasive confusion between terms. Words, like "Darwinism" and “Traditional Christianity”, seem to mean whatever Wells wants them to mean for that specific sentence. In many cases words are used without regard for his own stated definitions and usually without regard to usage elsewhere in his book. There are several possible reasons for this confusion in terms. First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue. Second, if you review the acknowledgements page, you’ll read how Wells used many authors to help him prepare this text. It is possible that Wells’s editorship was so insufficient that he allowed a term that makes up part of the book’s very title to have a flexible meaning. My suspicion is that there was both disparity between the understanding of key terms by different authors as well as an intention to confuse." Humburg, Burt (August 26, 2006). "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
  3. ^ "As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski. May 14 2005
  4. ^ "In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Gross, Paul R. (March 2003). "Darwinism versus intelligent design". Commentary Magazine. 115 (3). Retrieved 2007-02-05. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)
  5. http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/ Introduction, Icons of Evolution] Jonathan Wells.
  6. ^ The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis
  7. "His personal peculiarities include membership in the Moonies and support for AIDS reappraisal - the theory that the HIV is not the primary cause of AIDS" Undercover at the Discovery Institute Beth Quittman. Seattlest, September 8, 2006.
  8. "some leading lights of anti-evolution Intelligent Design theory, including ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." AIDS 'Denialism' Gathers Strange Bedfellows Peter McKnight. Originally published in the Vancouver Sun, June 17, 2006.
  9. ^ Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationsim And The Constitution Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey. Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 83, Number 1, 2005. (PDF file)
  10. 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.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
    Echoes of Lysenko: State-Sponsored Pseudoscience in South Africa University of Cape Town, Centre for Social Science Research. (PDF file)
    Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
    National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
    IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
    From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  11. "I eventually dropped out of school and drove a taxicab in New York City until receiving my draft notice in 1964. After spending two years in the U. S. Army, I transferred to the University of California at Berkeley. By then I was a critic of the Vietnam War, and when the Army called me back as a reservist in 1967 I refused. I was arrested by military police, court-martialed, and sent to Leavenworth. All together, I spent a year and half in prison."
  12. ^ "NNDB:Jonathan Wells". NNDB. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-28.
  13. Jonathan Wells (1997) [Theological Witch-Hunt: The NCC Critique of the Unification Church, Journal of Unification Studies hosted at www.tparents.org
  14. An Introduction to Intelligent Design Peter Gegenheimer. Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Kansas-Lawrence. Associate Professor of Molecular Biosciences. Lawrence KS USA
  15. Jonathan Wells, Notable Names Database
  16. Biography, Jonathan Wells Discovery Institute
  17. "Several of them grossly exaggerate or distort the truth, while others are patently false. Yet they are found year after year in almost all textbooks dealing with evolutionary theory, and they invariably accompany other material promoting that theory. When someone points out that the textbook examples misrepresent the facts, Darwinists don’t rush to correct them. Instead, they rush to defend them."
  18. Dr. Jonathan Wells Returns to UTS Cornerstone, 1997.
  19. Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D - Jonathan Wells, from tparents.org
  20. The new Monkey Trial Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.
  22. The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon: Our Standard
  23. Creationism by stealth Jerry Coyne. Nature, Volume 410, April 12, 2001.
  24. From Evolution Theory to a New Creation Theory -- Errors in Darwinism and a Proposal from Unification Thought "Under the Supervision of Sang Hun Lee." Unification Thought Institute, 1996.
  25. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design Michael Shermer. Times Books, 2006. Page 110
  26. Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family
  27. Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.
  28. Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.
  29. Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.
  30. PZ Myers is such a LIAR! PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.
  31. Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News Tara C. Smith. Aetiology, January 31, 2007.
  32. Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 44-45
  33. The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute.
  34. See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. 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.
  35. ^ Wells, Jonathan (2004). "Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research" (PDF). Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design. 3.1. Retrieved 2007-02-05. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)
  36. Musgrave, Ian (July 6, 2005). "That's another fine mess you've made Jonathan!". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 2007-02-05.
  37. "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?"
  38. Wells vs tiny flies Ian Musgrave. The Pandas Thumb, August 9, 2006.
  39. Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) by the Discovery Institute
  40. Revisiting Revista Dr. John Lynch. Stranger Fruit, June 2, 2005.
  41. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
  42. Wells testimony Kansas evolution hearings.
  43. Letter to the editor Jerry Coyne. Pratt Tribune. December 200. Also available from the Pratt Tribune's pay archive.
  44. 'Politically Incorrect' Series Takes on Darwinism and Intelligent Design
  45. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review". Panda's Thumb. August 19, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-04.

External links

Categories: