What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction
In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin’s theory known as "Intelligent Design"—and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? Jonathan Wells reveals that, for today’s Darwinists, there may be no other unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is simply unfit to survive.
Wells begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn’t produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record—such as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed—directly contradict Darwin’s theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution— including textbook "icons" such as peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, Haeckel’s embryos, and the Tree of Life—has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.
Wells then turns to the theory of intelligent design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman’s language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. As Wells explains, religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin—though not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation "must" be false—a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists’ materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence—or lack of it.
Darwin is an emperor who has no clothes— but it takes a brave man to say so. Jonathan Wells, a microbiologist with two Ph.D.s (from Berkeley and Yale), is that brave man. Most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind. Brave dissidents—qualified scientists—who try to teach or write about intelligent design are silenced and sent to the academic gulag. But fear Jonathan Wells is a liberator. He unmasks the truth about Darwinism— why it is wrong and what the real evidence is. He also supplies a revealing list of "Books You’re Not Supposed to Read" (as far as the Darwinists are concerned) and puts at your fingertips all the evidence you need to challenge the most closed-minded Darwinist.
In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin’s theory known as "Intelligent Design"—and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? Jonathan Wells reveals that, for today’s Darwinists, there may be no other unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is simply unfit to survive.
Wells begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn’t produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record—such as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed—directly contradict Darwin’s theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution— including textbook "icons" such as peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, Haeckel’s embryos, and the Tree of Life—has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.
Wells then turns to the theory of intelligent design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman’s language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. As Wells explains, religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin—though not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation "must" be false—a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists’ materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence—or lack of it.
Darwin is an emperor who has no clothes— but it takes a brave man to say so. Jonathan Wells, a microbiologist with two Ph.D.s (from Berkeley and Yale), is that brave man. Most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind. Brave dissidents—qualified scientists—who try to teach or write about intelligent design are silenced and sent to the academic gulag. But fear Jonathan Wells is a liberator. He unmasks the truth about Darwinism— why it is wrong and what the real evidence is. He also supplies a revealing list of "Books You’re Not Supposed to Read" (as far as the Darwinists are concerned) and puts at your fingertips all the evidence you need to challenge the most closed-minded Darwinist.
258 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2006
21 people are currently reading
515 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Wells
44 books61 followersJohn Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells was an American biologist, theologian, and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of its founder Sun Myung Moon and his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
May 28, 2024
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" is the latest, rather valiant, but intellectually dishonest, effort by Discovery Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells to defend the merits of an idea - Intelligent Design - which was demonstrated conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a religious doctrine pretending to be science at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover (Dover, PA) trial presided by Republican Federal judge John Jones. In Judge Jones' landmark, historic decision, he concluded that Intelligent Design is indeed a religious doctrine masquerading as science (The complete text is posted online at:
htttp://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-1...). Jones' verdict was praised soon thereafter by other Republicans and conservatives, including such distinguished journalists as Charles Krauthammer and George Will.
If you were a cancer patient requiring urgent medical care, then you would seek help from someone familiar with the latest medical techniques in fighting cancer: a doctor or nurse. The same is true with regards to learning about genuine science of which evolutionary biology remains a sterling example (For example, our understanding of the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, has relied extensively on research in evolutionary biology.). Contrary to Wells' arguments, Intelligent Design is not scientific since it relies on faith, not reason, as its raison d'etre; moreover, unlike a genuine scientific theory like Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, Intelligent Design does not offer testable hypotheses for determining the theory's validity and creating fruitful avenues for further scientific research. Wells is appealing to a potential reader's sense of fair play, claiming that Intelligent Design has been shut out of the "free market" of scientific ideas (In genuine science, a "free market" does hold sway, but it depends on the relative success of hypotheses which have passed rigorous scientific testing.).
There are other, more important - and intellectually sound - books available on the so-called "creation vs. evolution" controversy (Intelligent Design has been judged correctly as the latest flavor of creationism enjoying some popularity amongst fundamentalist Protestant Christians; one notable biologist has referred to it as "reborn creationism".). Philosopher Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel" is a splendid historical overview and philosophical deconstruction of creationism, including the best written rebuke of "Intelligent Design" which I've come across. Philip Kitcher, another philosopher, published "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" back in the early 1980s, but his arguments are still quite valid today. My friend Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" has an eloquent critique of Intelligent Design, focusing on Michael Behe's mousetrap model of irreducible complexity which claims to bestow validity on Intelligent Design. Distinguished American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) invertebrate paleobiologist Niles Eldredge offers yet another brilliant critique of Intelligent Design in his book "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life", the elegant companion volume to the AMNH Darwin exhibition which he curated, soon to embark on a tour taking it to many of North America's and Great Britain's finest science museums. And last, but not least, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), has written a fine textbook on this issue, "Evolution vs. Creationism". All of these books are more desirable than Wells' latest diatribe against evolutionary biology. Otherwise, if you insist on purchasing Wells' book, then perhaps you might choose to acquire instead a splendid text devoted to Klingon cosmology (Neither Klingon cosmology nor "Intelligent Design" can be regarded as scientific, since both depend on faith, not reason, to validate their principles.).
(Reposted from my 2006 Amazon review)
(EDITORIAL NOTE: I would also highly recommend Ken Miller's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, more so than his "Finding Darwin's God" since the former is an excellent deconstruction of Intelligent Design as "science" and also Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design".)
htttp://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-1...). Jones' verdict was praised soon thereafter by other Republicans and conservatives, including such distinguished journalists as Charles Krauthammer and George Will.
If you were a cancer patient requiring urgent medical care, then you would seek help from someone familiar with the latest medical techniques in fighting cancer: a doctor or nurse. The same is true with regards to learning about genuine science of which evolutionary biology remains a sterling example (For example, our understanding of the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, has relied extensively on research in evolutionary biology.). Contrary to Wells' arguments, Intelligent Design is not scientific since it relies on faith, not reason, as its raison d'etre; moreover, unlike a genuine scientific theory like Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, Intelligent Design does not offer testable hypotheses for determining the theory's validity and creating fruitful avenues for further scientific research. Wells is appealing to a potential reader's sense of fair play, claiming that Intelligent Design has been shut out of the "free market" of scientific ideas (In genuine science, a "free market" does hold sway, but it depends on the relative success of hypotheses which have passed rigorous scientific testing.).
There are other, more important - and intellectually sound - books available on the so-called "creation vs. evolution" controversy (Intelligent Design has been judged correctly as the latest flavor of creationism enjoying some popularity amongst fundamentalist Protestant Christians; one notable biologist has referred to it as "reborn creationism".). Philosopher Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel" is a splendid historical overview and philosophical deconstruction of creationism, including the best written rebuke of "Intelligent Design" which I've come across. Philip Kitcher, another philosopher, published "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" back in the early 1980s, but his arguments are still quite valid today. My friend Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" has an eloquent critique of Intelligent Design, focusing on Michael Behe's mousetrap model of irreducible complexity which claims to bestow validity on Intelligent Design. Distinguished American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) invertebrate paleobiologist Niles Eldredge offers yet another brilliant critique of Intelligent Design in his book "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life", the elegant companion volume to the AMNH Darwin exhibition which he curated, soon to embark on a tour taking it to many of North America's and Great Britain's finest science museums. And last, but not least, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), has written a fine textbook on this issue, "Evolution vs. Creationism". All of these books are more desirable than Wells' latest diatribe against evolutionary biology. Otherwise, if you insist on purchasing Wells' book, then perhaps you might choose to acquire instead a splendid text devoted to Klingon cosmology (Neither Klingon cosmology nor "Intelligent Design" can be regarded as scientific, since both depend on faith, not reason, to validate their principles.).
(Reposted from my 2006 Amazon review)
(EDITORIAL NOTE: I would also highly recommend Ken Miller's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, more so than his "Finding Darwin's God" since the former is an excellent deconstruction of Intelligent Design as "science" and also Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design".)
January 22, 2011
Explains the important issues of the controversy surrounding Darwinism and ID in a very clear, understandable and often humorous and witty style. I can understand now why the author is vilified by Darwinists so much. Lots of extremely hilarious but true stories about them inside! The issues are discussed in the light of the physical sciences, such as biology, paleontology, astronomy and biochemistry, as well as from the political, social, historical and religious angles.
An exceptionally fun read, but for those seeking more detailed arguments, I'd recommend the author's The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Sytems , written with William Dembski.
An exceptionally fun read, but for those seeking more detailed arguments, I'd recommend the author's The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Sytems , written with William Dembski.
April 23, 2012
[Audio:] Great summary of the ID ideas and challenges to evolution, though it doesn't go into great depth on any particular subject (doesn't claim to do so, either). It also provides some jaw dropping examples of the childish and vicious behavior of Darwinist adherents. Scientists--at least I was always taught this--are to pursue truth and dogma be darned. The behavior of some of the Darwinists does a nice job of paralleling the very behavior the Medieval Church is purported to have done. They use their power (provided at tax-payer expense) to crush challenges to prevailing dogma and destroy the personal lives of those with the temerity to ask questions--outrageous!
As Wells states, Darwinism is fading (thank you God!) and in 1-2 generations will be one of those things where we look back and ask ourselves, "What were we thinking!?"
As Wells states, Darwinism is fading (thank you God!) and in 1-2 generations will be one of those things where we look back and ask ourselves, "What were we thinking!?"
May 26, 2010
There is, alas, only one anti-evolution/intelligent design book. This is another version of it. I suppose that it is comforting to some that there are so many author willing to rehash the same old bogus arguments but I just find it sad. Evidence for biological evolution is now so overwhelming that denial will soon be impossible without some seriously strong kool-aid.
July 14, 2007
Fascinating discussion of evolution and intelligent design, made understandable for the average person
September 24, 2023
Great read, shows you how underwhelming the arguments for darwinism is, and their hoaxes that are still being thought in public schools in America today. Also sheds light on how the political powers push the darwinist religion. I would highly suggest getting your homeschooler to read it.
December 16, 2015
Despite the goofy cover art and obnoxious blurb from Ann Coulter, this is an excellent, honest (though admittedly biased), and engaging look at the origins debate between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Author Jonathan Wells explains why Intelligent Design, despite hysterical opposition from critics, is in fact a reasonable, non-religious, and, yes, scientifically viable theory. He also illustrates how people too often let their politics and personal philosophies get in the way when dealing with questions as to how life originated, and he shows the lengths some people are willing to go to in order to silence those who dare to question the validity of some of Darwin's more fantastic claims.
January 30, 2017
Disappointing in both subject matter and execution.
After reading some popular science books about evolution, I picked up this book in the hope of getting a clear, complete and articulate description of Intelligent Design from one of its leading proponents. I hoped it would improve my understanding of the reasoning behind ID, and perhaps reveal and question some of the unspoken assumptions of evolutionary theory.
This book failed to deliver in every way.
The first third of the book was a discussion of the "flaws" in evolutionary theory. Although there were some interesting points raised, almost all were based on misunderstandings or misstatements of evolutionary theory. None of the "flaws" came close to undermining evolutionary theory as the most sound explanation of the evidence. Furthermore, the errors in fact, interpretation and logic were, frankly, laughable.
Next was a discussion of Intelligent Design that was so short, you'd miss it if you skipped a few pages. Even so, it's clear that ID is based on an "analysis" that is purely subjective - whether design can be "inferred" from observation. There's no objective, repeatable method for measuring "design", so any detection of it is little more than opinion. The concept of "irreducible complexity" is an interesting discussion topic, but is nothing new - Darwin himself mentions it in The Origin of Species. Even if examples of it were found, they would at best only raise questions about the dominant role of natural selection in evolution, rather than lend any kind of support to the existence of a designer.
The final half of the book was a mishmash of tired old arguments - including "finely tuned universe", no less - endless rantings of how "Darwinists" have prevented ID from being taught in schools and fired "open-minded" academics, and how "Darwinism" leads to Nazism and immorality. The logic employed in these discussions varied from suspect to non-existent, and unsupported assertions abounded.
I approached this book with an open mind, searching for better understanding, and willing to be convinced of any valid insights and new perspectives that ID could give into the development of life on Earth.
Not only did this book convince me that ID is completely unscientific in basis, but if Wells is representative, its proponents are largely incapable of reason. Not recommended.
After reading some popular science books about evolution, I picked up this book in the hope of getting a clear, complete and articulate description of Intelligent Design from one of its leading proponents. I hoped it would improve my understanding of the reasoning behind ID, and perhaps reveal and question some of the unspoken assumptions of evolutionary theory.
This book failed to deliver in every way.
The first third of the book was a discussion of the "flaws" in evolutionary theory. Although there were some interesting points raised, almost all were based on misunderstandings or misstatements of evolutionary theory. None of the "flaws" came close to undermining evolutionary theory as the most sound explanation of the evidence. Furthermore, the errors in fact, interpretation and logic were, frankly, laughable.
Next was a discussion of Intelligent Design that was so short, you'd miss it if you skipped a few pages. Even so, it's clear that ID is based on an "analysis" that is purely subjective - whether design can be "inferred" from observation. There's no objective, repeatable method for measuring "design", so any detection of it is little more than opinion. The concept of "irreducible complexity" is an interesting discussion topic, but is nothing new - Darwin himself mentions it in The Origin of Species. Even if examples of it were found, they would at best only raise questions about the dominant role of natural selection in evolution, rather than lend any kind of support to the existence of a designer.
The final half of the book was a mishmash of tired old arguments - including "finely tuned universe", no less - endless rantings of how "Darwinists" have prevented ID from being taught in schools and fired "open-minded" academics, and how "Darwinism" leads to Nazism and immorality. The logic employed in these discussions varied from suspect to non-existent, and unsupported assertions abounded.
I approached this book with an open mind, searching for better understanding, and willing to be convinced of any valid insights and new perspectives that ID could give into the development of life on Earth.
Not only did this book convince me that ID is completely unscientific in basis, but if Wells is representative, its proponents are largely incapable of reason. Not recommended.
September 12, 2014
I was genuinely surprised to find this on my "to read" shelf. I couldn't recall buying it. Then I remembered it was a gift a few years ago.
I naively assumed from the title (and my usual reading fare) that it was a tongue-in-cheek look at Darwinism and Intelligent Design (ID).
No such luck!
It purports to be a serious discussion on the debate, and within a paragraph this was clear. I admit I would default to the pro-Darwin side of the debate so felt it only right that I remained open to potential persuasion and read the book anyway.
A waste of several evenings, to be sure!
There are perhaps two small pro-ID arguments made in the entire book. The rest is a whiny moan about how various pro-ID speakers were treated in public debates, or how much money the US government spends supporting Darwinism in schools. I'm sure some if not all the examples are true... but they hardly help support the ID argument. Being the underdog in an argument doesn't mean you're right! The author uses the same examples repeatedly, and delights in pulling apart an individual sentence in a Darwinist's book or speech. There is a small amount of argument against Darwinist examples but much more against people and their specific choice of language in their statements.
All very well referenced though - couldn't fault him on that.
The final straw for me was how he tries to say ID is not a religious stance, then puts in bible references. It's a very US, Christian-centric book too. He even poo-poohs "non-traditional" Christians in it. Those that don't believe that God has to literally have made Man in His (I'm not being sexist - it's the "traditional" view ;o) ) image.
Sorry Mr Wells... I'm still willing to be persuaded that Darwin was wrong (as with ANY scientific theory) but your book was nowhere near a convincing argument. I'd also guess you're not much fun at cocktail parties.
Use your time more fruitfully - read something else.
I naively assumed from the title (and my usual reading fare) that it was a tongue-in-cheek look at Darwinism and Intelligent Design (ID).
No such luck!
It purports to be a serious discussion on the debate, and within a paragraph this was clear. I admit I would default to the pro-Darwin side of the debate so felt it only right that I remained open to potential persuasion and read the book anyway.
A waste of several evenings, to be sure!
There are perhaps two small pro-ID arguments made in the entire book. The rest is a whiny moan about how various pro-ID speakers were treated in public debates, or how much money the US government spends supporting Darwinism in schools. I'm sure some if not all the examples are true... but they hardly help support the ID argument. Being the underdog in an argument doesn't mean you're right! The author uses the same examples repeatedly, and delights in pulling apart an individual sentence in a Darwinist's book or speech. There is a small amount of argument against Darwinist examples but much more against people and their specific choice of language in their statements.
All very well referenced though - couldn't fault him on that.
The final straw for me was how he tries to say ID is not a religious stance, then puts in bible references. It's a very US, Christian-centric book too. He even poo-poohs "non-traditional" Christians in it. Those that don't believe that God has to literally have made Man in His (I'm not being sexist - it's the "traditional" view ;o) ) image.
Sorry Mr Wells... I'm still willing to be persuaded that Darwin was wrong (as with ANY scientific theory) but your book was nowhere near a convincing argument. I'd also guess you're not much fun at cocktail parties.
Use your time more fruitfully - read something else.
September 2, 2018
Unfortunately, this book is so biased I can't give it more than three stars. It’s a shame, since I had originally hoped it wouldn’t be too slanted.
While I agree with many of the things Wells says, and I think his main points are worth hearing, the sarcasm and snark inherent in his writing serve as a detriment to his arguments, instead of a help. He airs grievances and names names. He complains about evolution curriculum in schools, but doesn’t first survey what aspects of Darwinism are present in what kinds of textbooks. His personal vendetta came through on every page, which prevents me from taking him seriously.
Not only did the tone feel too slanted, but the content itself felt... off. It’s like Wells hacked at macroevolution from the side. He never really takes it head on, but instead picks only a few pieces to mention. I want an overview of the main influences Darwinism has on all scientific fields, and what the inherent flaws are in those fields as a result of the Darwinistic paradigm. And thoughts about what effects an ID or Creationism paradigm might, or does, look like in current research. Interpretations on both sides, weighed equally. But I didn’t get that here.
While I agree with many of the things Wells says, and I think his main points are worth hearing, the sarcasm and snark inherent in his writing serve as a detriment to his arguments, instead of a help. He airs grievances and names names. He complains about evolution curriculum in schools, but doesn’t first survey what aspects of Darwinism are present in what kinds of textbooks. His personal vendetta came through on every page, which prevents me from taking him seriously.
Not only did the tone feel too slanted, but the content itself felt... off. It’s like Wells hacked at macroevolution from the side. He never really takes it head on, but instead picks only a few pieces to mention. I want an overview of the main influences Darwinism has on all scientific fields, and what the inherent flaws are in those fields as a result of the Darwinistic paradigm. And thoughts about what effects an ID or Creationism paradigm might, or does, look like in current research. Interpretations on both sides, weighed equally. But I didn’t get that here.
Read
March 26, 2013Though Intelligent Design is not my cup of tea when it comes to apologetics argument for the Christian faith nevertheless I read this book in order to stay abreast with contemporary non-Presuppositionalist's apologetics. The beginning of the book defined the term evolution, Darwinism, Creationism and intelligent design which is helpful so that readers can be more precise in their own use of the term. This section made me realize that I need to ask those I'm interacting with to define what they mean when they use those terms instead of assuming I know what they mean or giving them a free pass for any potential misunderstanding or error. The book noted rightly that evolution as a definition is too broad if it only refer to change, since everyone believes in some kind of change or another over time. Most people mean Darwinism when they talk about evolution and Darwinism is defined as the descent of organism with biological modification into other species. From time to time I hear atheists complain that Christians invented the term "Darwinism" as a prejorative for evolution but this is simply not true: The book traces the term "Darwinism" being first used by Darwinists themselves. Similarly, the term micro and macro evolution was also not a Creationist invention since the term was first used by Darwinists. Half of the book was focused on the problems of Darwinism while the second half focused on intelligent design. Those familiar with the problems of evolution and it's evidences will see them rehearsed in this book. The author also noted an interesting dilemma concerning Darwinists who assert that something scientific must be falsifiable and then say they dismiss intelligent design since it's not falsifiable but then these same critics write in peer review journal articles that "refute" intelligent design; yet how could they refute it if it is not something falsifiable to begin with? As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. As a presuppositionalists reading this book, I can't help but to see the scary documented stories of Darwinist' campaign of misinformation and persecution of non-Darwinists confirms the point that true religious neutrality is an impossibility. These stories are down right frightening for those who want to pursue a career in academia and happen to have even the slightest reservation concerning Darwinism. There's the quote from Paul Z. Myers who talked about bringing out brass knuckles against those expounding intelligent design, and the campaign to harass and oust the Smithsonian's editor who agreed to publish an ID paper. Readers must not forget the assorted danger of government enforced Darwinism. The book was not heavy on the philosophical side but I was pleasantly surprised with the author's familiarity with Thomas Khun's discussion about scientific revolution which is the source of the author's optimism about the future of Intelligent Design.
July 14, 2014
I listen to do this on audiobook. This is an introduction to intelligent design. It is not young earth creationism but it provides some good arguments against Darwinian evolution by exposing the weak evidence and the unscientific hostility of Darwinian scientists against any other theories. Very boldly the author predicts the failure of Darwinian evolution and the triumph of intelligent design by arguing for the already present characteristics of a scientific revolution. The regular listing of "books you are not supposed to read" was humorous and the well placed sarcasm against the scientific establishment were quite entertaining. This is a good resource to give someone who is blindly accepting the claims of the scientific establishment.
July 19, 2011
Just finished this and a very good book, though it was written by a scientist and so there are lots of technical terms. It seems the Darwinist bunch are guilty of the same Fascist fundamentalism they use to accuse their detractors. Darwinists have attacked anyone who even seeks a scientific critical analysis of evolutionary biology with McCarthyistic zeal. Don't think, just nod and obey!
January 10, 2022
If "intelligent" design then why Jonathan Wells so stupid
September 1, 2011
The apostle Paul complained of having a "thorn in his flesh," possibly referring to some type of physical or psychological problem. Today, advocates of evolution have religious fundamentalists as their thorn, and vice versa. The problem is that for all that evolution supposedly explains, it leaves many questions unanswered. Calling it a "proven fact" seems a bit premature, especially considering that the majority of the evidence can be interpreted in different ways.
"Faith is not a possession of all people," the Bible states and this is quite evident, judging from some of this book's harsher critics. I was surprised to read how vitriolic and hateful the evolutionists were in the court cases in Dover, PA, and Kansas. If they do have incontrovertible evidence that evolution is correct, why resort to name-calling and mudslinging? That is so junior high, and completely unbecoming of supposedly rational, intelligent scientists.
Like a judge in a court case, one has to hear both sides before rendering a decision. That is simple justice and is both logical and reasonable. I refuse to let other people tell me what I should believe. I prefer to find out the facts for myself. I would encourage any open-minded people to read evolutionary biology books (Richard Dawkins immediately comes to mind, as does Stephen Jay Gould) and then contrast their writings with Wells's or William Dembski's writings.
After all, great scientists such as Newton and Galileo had no problem reconciling their discoveries with the existence of an intelligent Designer.
"Faith is not a possession of all people," the Bible states and this is quite evident, judging from some of this book's harsher critics. I was surprised to read how vitriolic and hateful the evolutionists were in the court cases in Dover, PA, and Kansas. If they do have incontrovertible evidence that evolution is correct, why resort to name-calling and mudslinging? That is so junior high, and completely unbecoming of supposedly rational, intelligent scientists.
Like a judge in a court case, one has to hear both sides before rendering a decision. That is simple justice and is both logical and reasonable. I refuse to let other people tell me what I should believe. I prefer to find out the facts for myself. I would encourage any open-minded people to read evolutionary biology books (Richard Dawkins immediately comes to mind, as does Stephen Jay Gould) and then contrast their writings with Wells's or William Dembski's writings.
After all, great scientists such as Newton and Galileo had no problem reconciling their discoveries with the existence of an intelligent Designer.
January 8, 2014
If one were to be politically correct, that is, ideologically sound, one would characterize the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design as between science and the Bible, between reason and superstition. That is how it is essentially portrayed in the media and the scientific establishment.
Author Jonathan Wells, however, is anything but politically correct. He portrays the debate as a conflict between two views of what is real. On the one side are the Darwinists, protectors of a materialist creation myth which begins with the words "in the beginning were the particles in mindless motion." And on the other side are proponents of intelligent design, most of whom would affirm John chapter one, "in the beginning was the Word."
Not all I.D. proponents are Christians, but all are open to the possibility that nature may show the hallmarks not only of natural causes but also of intelligent causes. This is decidedly a politically incorrect point of view, and with examples Wells illustrates the professional cost one may incur for holding it.
By citing philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, he shows why the current Darwinian power structure is digging in its heels and refusing to consider evidence that does not comport with its materialist paradigm. But if Kuhn is right, Wells has reason to be confident that even now we are seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift as the last and strongest bastion of nineteenth-century materialism - Darwinism, crumbles before the growing onslaught of the evidence. Darwinism may go down kicking and screaming, but it will go down.
Author Jonathan Wells, however, is anything but politically correct. He portrays the debate as a conflict between two views of what is real. On the one side are the Darwinists, protectors of a materialist creation myth which begins with the words "in the beginning were the particles in mindless motion." And on the other side are proponents of intelligent design, most of whom would affirm John chapter one, "in the beginning was the Word."
Not all I.D. proponents are Christians, but all are open to the possibility that nature may show the hallmarks not only of natural causes but also of intelligent causes. This is decidedly a politically incorrect point of view, and with examples Wells illustrates the professional cost one may incur for holding it.
By citing philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, he shows why the current Darwinian power structure is digging in its heels and refusing to consider evidence that does not comport with its materialist paradigm. But if Kuhn is right, Wells has reason to be confident that even now we are seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift as the last and strongest bastion of nineteenth-century materialism - Darwinism, crumbles before the growing onslaught of the evidence. Darwinism may go down kicking and screaming, but it will go down.
January 31, 2012
Excellent summary of Intelligent Design and the problems of Darwinism. Unfortunately, the "theory" of evolution predicts nothing specific (as real scientific theories must), but is so flexible and vague that it can explain almost any observation. Consequently, the circumstantial and frequently contradictory genomic and fossil evidence is useless in proving or disproving "Molecules to Man" evolution. Microevolutionary changes (within a species) do not necessarily add up to macroevolutionary changes (development of innovative new species and functions). Unfortunately, evolution is a major dogma in the religion of Naturalism which states (without proof) that all things (including the origin of life and of matter) can be explained by natural processes. The new religion of Naturalism is, in fact, a cleverly disguised version of Atheism.
July 18, 2013
I couldn't survive the bull on perpetual charge in this book. Wells argues that Darwinism constantly fails to prove its validity on every scientific dialogue due to equivocation; meaning it's not definitively clear on what Darwinism truly is. Apart from my fundamental disagreement with the author on that premise, here's my biggest problem: Wells fails to recognize that as a proponent of Intelligent Design, he cannot possibly submit an impartial critique to readers. An unqualified authority to contest against Darwinism to favor ID, he flagrantly argues with a red-herring and straw man devices. Faith is non causa pro causa, and he is sickeningly satisfied by it. Sorry to say, in spite of the eloquent prose weaved on the pages of this book, it is not worth the time.
November 29, 2009
Didn't seem as cohesive as some of the other books in the Politically Incorrect Guide series, but still provides a good analysis of what Intelligent Design both is and isn't.
There aren't any conclusions drawn about what the "right" answer is between ID and Darwinism, but does make it clear that you can't investigate one by excluding the other.
There aren't any conclusions drawn about what the "right" answer is between ID and Darwinism, but does make it clear that you can't investigate one by excluding the other.
April 15, 2010
For anybody who would like an easilly accessible book about the science of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It goes head-long into controversies and theories of undirected evolution from the origin of life to archeological evidence (or lack thereof) to Haeckle's embryos to evo-devo. It's a fascinating read.
October 5, 2011
This an excellent and relatively brief survey of Intelligent Design, not only the facts that drive the theory, but also of the politics of those who disagree with it and do everything in their power to suppress it.
April 1, 2018
"Real science has never had to resort to credentialism." Orson Scott Card
A good handbook on the controversy over Intelligent Design. The strengths of ID are on full display here. The problem with ID is its insistence that ID advocates are unbiased, objective observers of evidence. If only, they say, the Darwinist would drop his preconceptions and look at the evidence dispassionately, he would come to the conclusion that life and the universe were designed. This is obviously ridiculous. ID advocates, like their opponents, have certain pre-commitments that guide them in their reasoning--and that's okay.
A good handbook on the controversy over Intelligent Design. The strengths of ID are on full display here. The problem with ID is its insistence that ID advocates are unbiased, objective observers of evidence. If only, they say, the Darwinist would drop his preconceptions and look at the evidence dispassionately, he would come to the conclusion that life and the universe were designed. This is obviously ridiculous. ID advocates, like their opponents, have certain pre-commitments that guide them in their reasoning--and that's okay.
February 18, 2023
Personally, I thought this book was thought-provoking, persuasive and well-written.
Granted, I am in a privileged position reading this book. While I tend to think of myself (albeit with a twitch of discomfort) as a Christian secularist, in that I think societies most conducive to relative peace are those that do not favour any religion over another, I also believe the Universe was created by an Intelligent Deity, matching most closely the descriptions of the Bible above any other holy texts. Therefore, while I am inclined to think any serious hunt for empirical evidence of God's handiwork is likely to be futile - we probably won't find any smoking gun in the foreseeable future, and even if we did, it is unlikely to meet a unanimously warm reception - I also would love to see the day whereupon it was made truly irrefutable.
As it is, the divide seems likely to remain one of either a wholly naturalistic, or else a philosophic conclusion of the ultimate reason for our being here.
So, this book isn't likely to convince many people that the universe was created by God. But it doesn't really set out to do that anyway. Rather - and most effectively in my opinion - it sets out to critique certain models, assumptions and implications of Darwinism. Importantly, Wells makes it clear that he is not - nor are most intelligent theists - against the theory of evolution (that is, biological change over time, for the purposes of adaptation). Rather, he stakes his bets against Darwinism, which seems to be the most popular and domineering line of thinking to be drawn from evolution - which wasn't discovered but was certainly popularised by the great Charles Darwin, of whom I actually do admire.
Wells is at his best when he argues for the precepts of Intelligent Design to be, at the very least, accepted as an alternative hypothesis to the perpetual accidentalism of evolution. Yet, especially throughout the last half-century, it seems ID has become so "dangerous" an idea, that it provokes the most extreme displays of vitriol, censoriousness, and hypocrisy among the so-called reasonable class of scientists and academics.
I am not qualified in the least to even attempt some form of creationism apologetics (which, this book also stresses, is NOT the same as Intelligent Design). On top of that, I'm tired and I have a cold. Therefore, I will not bother writing much else.
Suffice to say, I think this book was much better than its quasi-comedic publishing format would have you believe. If you are a theist and you "inconsistently" believe in a creator God who (oh, the horror!) actually lived up to his title, then I think you will at least mostly like this book. If you reject such an outlandish idea, and it makes you feel a little sick to the stomach, then I can only hope you might at least try to read this with an open mind, be prepared to accept that maybe your theories on the big and largely unanswerable questions are not entirely without holes (science, by and large, must "evolve" upon said holes), and try to practice a little humility and tolerance in the face of opposing ideas.
Going off the calibre of many Goodreads reviews, this seems a wish unlikely to be met. But, for what it's worth, one can hardly say Christians have displayed great skill here either. Basically, most of us are assholes, which is yet another reason why I think we need a God who promises salvation through repentance.
Survival of the fittest?
More like survival of the shittest.
Granted, I am in a privileged position reading this book. While I tend to think of myself (albeit with a twitch of discomfort) as a Christian secularist, in that I think societies most conducive to relative peace are those that do not favour any religion over another, I also believe the Universe was created by an Intelligent Deity, matching most closely the descriptions of the Bible above any other holy texts. Therefore, while I am inclined to think any serious hunt for empirical evidence of God's handiwork is likely to be futile - we probably won't find any smoking gun in the foreseeable future, and even if we did, it is unlikely to meet a unanimously warm reception - I also would love to see the day whereupon it was made truly irrefutable.
As it is, the divide seems likely to remain one of either a wholly naturalistic, or else a philosophic conclusion of the ultimate reason for our being here.
So, this book isn't likely to convince many people that the universe was created by God. But it doesn't really set out to do that anyway. Rather - and most effectively in my opinion - it sets out to critique certain models, assumptions and implications of Darwinism. Importantly, Wells makes it clear that he is not - nor are most intelligent theists - against the theory of evolution (that is, biological change over time, for the purposes of adaptation). Rather, he stakes his bets against Darwinism, which seems to be the most popular and domineering line of thinking to be drawn from evolution - which wasn't discovered but was certainly popularised by the great Charles Darwin, of whom I actually do admire.
Wells is at his best when he argues for the precepts of Intelligent Design to be, at the very least, accepted as an alternative hypothesis to the perpetual accidentalism of evolution. Yet, especially throughout the last half-century, it seems ID has become so "dangerous" an idea, that it provokes the most extreme displays of vitriol, censoriousness, and hypocrisy among the so-called reasonable class of scientists and academics.
I am not qualified in the least to even attempt some form of creationism apologetics (which, this book also stresses, is NOT the same as Intelligent Design). On top of that, I'm tired and I have a cold. Therefore, I will not bother writing much else.
Suffice to say, I think this book was much better than its quasi-comedic publishing format would have you believe. If you are a theist and you "inconsistently" believe in a creator God who (oh, the horror!) actually lived up to his title, then I think you will at least mostly like this book. If you reject such an outlandish idea, and it makes you feel a little sick to the stomach, then I can only hope you might at least try to read this with an open mind, be prepared to accept that maybe your theories on the big and largely unanswerable questions are not entirely without holes (science, by and large, must "evolve" upon said holes), and try to practice a little humility and tolerance in the face of opposing ideas.
Going off the calibre of many Goodreads reviews, this seems a wish unlikely to be met. But, for what it's worth, one can hardly say Christians have displayed great skill here either. Basically, most of us are assholes, which is yet another reason why I think we need a God who promises salvation through repentance.
Survival of the fittest?
More like survival of the shittest.
September 17, 2016
This stuff is fascinating. Luckily, I had heard all of this at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. The book was written to a much different audience than myself. I found it hard to understand simply because it is written for a scientific audience. The Creation Museum had broken this stuff down for me so that even people without PHDs could understand. The reason for the four stars is simple. We need to go to the next logical conclusion and discuss God and Jesus's role in creation.
December 6, 2007
This entire line of books is incredibly good, chocked full of information you usually don't find in history books or classes, giving new light to "accepted" history.
This one refutes the theory of evolution as just that, a theory, and points to the facts supporting a designed world, rather than a random one.
This one refutes the theory of evolution as just that, a theory, and points to the facts supporting a designed world, rather than a random one.
October 1, 2011
I listened to the audio version so it was difficult to follow along with all the topics. Overall it reaffirmed my suspicions that Darwinists use bullying tactics to "prove" their theory. Intelligent Design!
November 18, 2011
Ugh, scientific words - check, many words - check, accusing - check, common freaking sense - FAIL!
June 15, 2021
One of the most dishonest books I have ever read. If you think he accurately represented evolution, you are sorely wrong, and you need to look into evolution yourself.
February 7, 2020
So where do you come down in the discussion (argument?) of Evolution (Darwinism) versus Creationism (Religion)? Did you know that these are not the only choices? The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells adds a new (relatively speaking) contender into the fray: Intelligent Design! According to the author, although Darwinism is pretty much considered settled science (remember this one: The Debate Is Over...with science, the debate is never really over, pending new discoveries and new evidence) and is what is primarily taught in schools today, there are still some holes in the basic theory. There are gaps in the evolutionary chain (like the Cambrian Explosion) that are not explained by Darwinism that Intelligent Design may help explain. Others say that Intelligent Design is nothing more that Religion posing as science. The author goes into detail in presenting the main points of Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design to help readers understand each of these ideas. If nothing else, it is a thought-provoking book that should cause you to question what you believe and help you understand the arguments from all sides.
March 26, 2021
(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).
The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.
More hammer blows to history's greatest house of cards.
The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.
More hammer blows to history's greatest house of cards.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews