Replies

T.O. says about Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship.

A lot of the evidence they cite is nit-picking ignoring the big picture. For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment is thought as definitive in the public imagination. Wells shows that the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere was not right to create amino acids as per Miller-Urey.

He's blasted for pointing out that the photographs of peppered moths in textbooks were staged. (They were and it was dishonest to do so)

Also, TO says: The strangest aspect of the book is the bizarre view of mainstream science Wells presents: The idea that a secret gang of "Darwinists" controls the teaching of evolution and uses coercion and deceit to suppress all disagreement! Does Wells present any evidence to support his claim of a Darwinist conspiracy that mercilessly persecutes any scientist who dares criticize the dogma?

I don't think there is any doubt that happens.

Newer data has only reinforced that there was more hydrogen than once thought and reducing conditions were probably widespread. That's the only relevant new data of which I am aware.

All of your "objections" are simple restatements of Wells's demolished points. The link deals with them adequately.

A lot of the evidence they cite is nit-picking ignoring the big picture. For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment is thought as definitive in the public imagination. Wells shows that the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere was not right to create amino acids as per Miller-Urey.

In fact, the TO article accuses Wells of exactly the same sin of nit-picking while ignoring the big picture. They include several references to current sources that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT Wells' assertion that the consensus of the scientifica community significantly discounts the relevance of the Miller-Urey experiment.

The whole issue with Miller-Urey is a straw man. The experiment was, as TO says, a LANDMARK experiment. The precise parameters used may not have been correct (though they were correct according to the limited information available at the time), but the strength of the experiment lies in the fact that the parameters can be varied somewhat and the amino acids are still produced. They state that there is a whole sub-field of research continuing along these same lines today: "The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today."

A lot of the evidence they cite is nit-picking ignoring the big picture. For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment is thought as definitive in the public imagination. Wells shows that the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere was not right to create amino acids as per Miller-Urey.

This is of no consequence. Thermal vents can produce amino-acids. The significance of Miller is not that he solved the problem of abiogenesis, but that he demonstrated it was researchable.

The problem with ID and other criticisms of evolution is not that they are wrong, but that they are (literally) worthless. They don't lead to research.