Product Description

You think you know about Darwinism and intelligent design, but did you know: *There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism; *Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief; *What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods; *Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design; *Scientists who question Darwinism are punished--by public institutions using your tax dollars. Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #96805 in Books
• Published on: 2006-08-21
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

From the Back Cover
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 choice: 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 not: 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.

About the Author
Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington. He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. He is the author of Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution Is Wrong (Regnery) and is currently doing intelligent design–related scientific research.

Customer Reviews

An Excellent expose on the politics of Darwinism
Start by ignoring the ad-hominem attacks of some reviewers. This book is an excellent expose on the underlying politics and protectionism of the Darwinists. Reading the book exposes the common tactics or those on shaky ground be they AGW Warmaholics or evolutionists.

This book is primarily one that exposes many of the underlying flaws and limitations in the current state of study in evolutionary processes. It highlights the same kinds of attacks made on say deniers of anthropogenic global warming as made on anyone who supports the consideration of Intelligent Design (ID).

The fundamentals of ID are mentioned but not in detail and this is why I only gave the book 4 stars. After reading this book, at the very least you should be questioning the tactics of the Darwinists in the US and encourage you to start asking questions about the possibility of ID. There is also no requirement to believe in God to think about the scientific principles behind ID.

Any argument that goes "evolution is true so anything else is false and you have no right to question it" is not science or a scientific process, it is sociology.

good summary of ID
I've read a little bit on Intelligent Design and have always been left with questions and this P.I.G. answered a lot of them.

For one, ID (as in Disc. Inst.) does not push for ID in grade schools since it is not a widely accepted theory. I was under the impression that they did and I was always bothered by it (regardless of the truth value of ID) since you would expect students to be taught what most scientists believe.

The two prongs of the ID thrust are 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity'. S.C is complexity that cannot be exhibited by either random chance or natural laws. Wells deals with random chance but only mentions in passing complexity due to natural laws. I found this a fault but I suppose it is addressed in Dembski's work. I found the idea of S.C to be interesting and alluring. It deals with the question of " how do we know if something has been designed or not?" It is an interesting question and I would like to learn more about it.

I was somewhat more familiar with Behe's irreducible complexity. I find I.C. to be more of the attack on Darwinism than as being evidence for ID. using I.C. as evidence for a designer seems to smell an awful lot like a god-of-the-gaps.

Much of the book also deals with Darwinism and its criticisms (that have been indexed in many other books also). As I am not a biologist or geologist I don't feel like I am in a position to evaluate them here.

Wells also comments on the cultural battle between Darwinism and ID. An important facet of the debate is the question of the definition of science. Darwinists have defined it so as to exclude a designer. Of course if a designer exists then scientists will be lead astray. It would seem that science should be more generally focused on finding and discovering theories that explain facts. Admittedly, much if not all of what we call science has been able to do so without mention of a designer. But then again the study of life's origins is not exactly conventional science.

Lying to the choir
The title of the book does not do it justice. Not only is it politically incorrect, it is scientifically, factually, logically, academically and morally incorrect.

Once again Jonathan Wells has clearly outlined that Intelligent Design is nothing but a series of well refuted "negative evidence" for evolution. For those that disagree, when you read this book, please try to find one piece of evidence FOR design. Let's assume for a moment that evolution is actually false - now please tell me what Intelligent Design predicts. One scientifically testable prediction is all I ask.

It is telling to see these arguments hammered out in the popular press. I am all for legitimate scientific debate - it is what science thrives on. However, when scientists have a genuine debate they argue in peer reviewed journals, not popular books.