The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent DesignBook - 2006
A non-technical analysis of the controversial culture war over Darwin versus intelligent design states that there is no irrefutable evidence supporting Darwinism and argues that Darwin-based theories that are taught in schools are not fact-based.
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, Darwinismlike Marxism and Freudianism before itis 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 recordsuch as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formeddirectly 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 Lifehas 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 Darwinthough not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation "must" be falsea 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 evidenceor 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 dissidentsqualified scientistswho 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.
A non-technical analysis of the controversial culture war over Darwin versus intelligent design states that there is no irrefutable evidence supporting Darwinism, argues that Darwin-based theories that are taught in school are not fact-based, and reveals how scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design. Original.
From the critics
AgeAdd Age Suitability
QuotesAdd a Quote
"One thinks of scientists as calm, intelligent people, perhaps wearing white smocks, who take on questions to which we don't know the answers, think about them carefully, and test various explanations experimentally until they come up with one that solves the problem....But that hasn't been the reaction of the evolutionists to intelligent design at all. They have all but bitten themselves in two trying to drive it straight out of the realm of serious discussion."
- Columnist William Rusher, 2005, quoted on page 205
SummaryAdd a Summary
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.