Editing Icons of Evolution (section)

==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.<ref name="Scott2001">{{cite journal|last1=Scott|first1=E. C.|title=EVOLUTION: Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm|journal=Science|volume=292|issue=5525|year=2001|pages=2257a–2258|issn=0036-8075|doi=10.1126/science.1060716|s2cid=153963713}}</ref> Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely [[quote mining|misquoting them]] and misleading readers.<ref name="misquoting"/> This includes biologist [[Bruce Grant (professor)|Bruce Grant]], who said Wells was "dishonest" with his work<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/grant-pratt-tribune.html | title=LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading | publisher=[[Pratt Tribune]] |date= December 13, 2000 | first=Bruce | last= Grant | access-date =2007-05-17}}</ref> and biologist [[Jerry Coyne]] who said Wells "misused" and "mischaracterized" his work on [[peppered moths]].<ref>[http://www.jodkowski.pl/ka/PrattTribune005.html Letter to the editor] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116054931/http://www.jodkowski.pl/ka/PrattTribune005.html |date=2013-01-16 }} [[Jerry Coyne]]. Pratt Tribune. December 2000. Also available from the [http://pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/06-663-news91.txt Pratt Tribune's pay archive] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031011034414/http://pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=%2F2000%2FDecember%2F06-663-news91.txt |date=2003-10-11 }}. {{quote|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.''}}</ref><ref name="Grant2002">{{cite journal|last1=Grant|first1=B. S.|title=EVOLUTION: Sour Grapes of Wrath|journal=Science|volume=297|issue=5583|year=2002|pages=940–941|issn=0036-8075|doi=10.1126/science.1073593|s2cid=161367302}}</ref> Specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design<ref>See: 1) [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]] 2) [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 83 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]. The Discovery Institute's [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ 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 [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects ID] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |date=2002-11-13 }}.  More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060115091707/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |date=2006-01-15 }}. [http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/science List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.</ref> as a valid [[scientific theory]], instead seeing it as [[pseudoscience]].<ref>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 [http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50794 intelligent design is not science]{{dead link|date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

[[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".<ref name = Obfuscation/>

[[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."<ref name="CoyneNature" />

Of the Wells' motive, Alan D. Gishlick wrote: <blockquote>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.<ref name = Gishlick/></blockquote> 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."<ref name="CrewsReview">{{cite magazine | url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14581 | title=Saving Us From Darwin | magazine=[[The New York Review of Books]] |volume= 48 |issue= 15 |date= October 4, 2001 | first=Frederick | last= Crews | access-date =2008-05-17}}</ref>

In 2002, [[Massimo Pigliucci]] devoted part of his ''[[Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science|Denying Evolution]]'' to refuting each point presented in ''Icons of Evolution''.<ref>[[Massimo Pigliucci]]. ''[[Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science]].'' (Sinauer, 2002): {{ISBN|0-87893-659-9}} page 252-264</ref> 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."<ref name="Pigliucci2001">{{cite journal|last1=Pigliucci|first1=Massimo|title=intelligent Design Theory|journal=BioScience|volume=51|issue=5|year=2001|pages=411|issn=0006-3568|doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0411:IDT]2.0.CO;2|s2cid=86656628 }}</ref> In 2005, Pigliucci debated Wells on [[Uncommon Knowledge]] on broader issues of evolution and intelligent design.<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2933961.html | title=Evolution and Intelligent Design: Pigliucci vs Wells | publisher=[[Uncommon Knowledge]] | date=January 14, 2005 | access-date=2008-07-17 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080308173157/http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2933961.html | archive-date=March 8, 2008 }}</ref>

[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]] discuss Wells' book in ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse]]''. One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that [[Recapitulation theory|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)."<ref>[[Barbara Forrest]] and [[Paul R. Gross]]. ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse]]''. 2004, page 105</ref>

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."<ref name="Weisenberg">Richard Weisenberg, "Challenging ideas against teaching of evolution," [[Philadelphia Inquirer]], Saturday, December 16, 2000 Page: A16 Edition: D Section: EDITORIAL</ref>  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."<ref name="Weisenberg"/>

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]],<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20050506154801/http://texscience.org/files/fowler.htm Letter to Judith P. Fowler]}} Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science</ref><ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20070928122239/http://texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/ Written Testimony to the State Board of Education of Texas]}} Steven D. Schafersman. Texas Citizens for Science, August 18, 2003.</ref> and PZ Myers.<ref name="myers_haeckel ">[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/textbooks_and_haeckel_again.php Textbooks and Haeckel again] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070217163322/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/textbooks_and_haeckel_again.php |date=2007-02-17 }} [[PZ Myers]]. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.</ref>
That Wells' doctorate in biology at [[University of California, Berkeley]] was funded by [[Sun Myung Moon|Sun Myung Moon's]] [[Unification Church]]<ref>[http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/print.html?pn=4 The new Monkey Trial] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630172913/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/print.html?pn=4 |date=2006-06-30 }} Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.</ref> and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"<ref>[http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.] Jonathan Wells. The Words of the Wells Family</ref> are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific [[Objectivity (science)|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.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/mything_the_poi.html Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924063710/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/mything_the_poi.html |date=2015-09-24 }} John S. Wilkins. [[The Panda's Thumb (weblog)|The Panda's Thumb]] March 30, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a.php Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111226071454/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a.php |date=2011-12-26 }} [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]],  January 24, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a_1.php Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120201215140/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a_1.php |date=2012-02-01 }} [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]],  January 25, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/pz_myers_is_such_a_liar.php PZ Myers is such a LIAR!] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120125084715/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/pz_myers_is_such_a_liar.php |date=2012-01-25 }} [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]],  November 3, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/01/wells_at_yale.php ''Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507180233/http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/01/wells_at_yale.php |date=2012-05-07 }}, Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007.</ref> The [[Discovery Institute]] has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells's religion."<ref name=realtruth>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=444 The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells] from the [[Discovery Institute]].</ref>

In 2009, Patricia Princehouse, Professor at [[Case Western Reserve University]], testified in a [[Mount Vernon City School District (Ohio)|Mount Vernon City School District]] hearing that ''Icons'' was full of fraudulent representations of material in science textbooks.<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/01/10/Princehouse-testifies-in-Freshwater-hearing | title=Princehouse testifies in Freshwater hearing | publisher=[[Mount Vernon News]] | date=January 10, 2009 | access-date=2009-01-17 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090115105741/http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/01/10/Princehouse-testifies-in-Freshwater-hearing | archive-date=January 15, 2009 }}</ref> [[Christopher Hitchens]] describes the book as "unlikely even to rate a footnote in the history of piffle".<ref>{{Cite book |title=God is not Great |last=Hitchens |first=Christopher |author-link=Christopher Hitchens |year=2007 |publisher=Allen & Unwin |location=Crows Nest, N.S.W. |isbn=978-1-74175-222-9 |page= <!-- Page number? --> |title-link=God is not Great }}</ref>