Icons of Evolution

Infobox_Book
name = Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth


author = Jonathan Wells
cover_artist =
publisher = Regnery Publishing
release_date = January 2002
media_type = Paperback
pages = 338
isbn = ISBN 0895262002

"Icons of Evolution" is a controversial book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, and a 2002 video about the book. The icons were summarized in his December 2000/January 2001 of the American Spectator article. [" [http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf Survival of the Fakest] " by Jonathan Wells, 2000 (A reprint from the "American Spectator")] . In the book, Wells criticized the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. [http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/iconsconclusion.html Icons of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong] Alan D. Gishlick. National Center for Science Education]

Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells' conclusions.Quoting Dr Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology at College of William and Mary: quotation|"But should we blame Ms Rider for her outrage upon learning that moths were glued to trees? No. Instead I blame Dr Wells, who wrote the article she cites as her source of information. While he has done no work on industrial mechanism, he has written [an] opinion about that work. To one outside the field, he passes as a scholar, complete with Ph.D. Unfortunately, Dr Wells is intellectually dishonest. . . . He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent." in Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. "". 2004, page 111] [Quoting Dr. Jerry Coyne, Professor of Biology at University of Chicago: quotation|"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." [http://www.jodkowski.pl/ka/PrattTribune005.html Letter to the editor] 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] .]

Many in the scientific community have strongly criticised the book and its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled and its conclusions as to the evidentiary status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by biologists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology. [cite news | url=http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm | title=Creationism by Stealth |publisher=Nature | date= 410, (2001) 745-46 | first=Jerry | last=Coyne | accessdate = 2006-12-24] Kevin Padian and Alan D. Gishlick wrote a review in "Quarterly Review of Biology" of Wells' "Icons" comparing Wells to Tom Ripley, noting "In our view, regardless of Wells’s religious or philosophical background, his "Icons of Evolution" can scarcely be considered a work of scholarly integrity."cite news | url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/339201 | title=The Talented Mr. Wells | publisher=Quarterly Review of Biology |date= March 2002 vol. 77, no. 1 | first=Kevin Padian | last=Alan D. Gishlick | accessdate =2007-05-17] Gishlick wrote a more detailed critique for the National Center for Science Education in his article "Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong" [" [http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/pdfs.html Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong] " by Alan D. Gishlick ( [http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icons.pdf PDF here] )] . Nick Matzke of talk.origins reviewed Wells' work in the article "Icon of Obfuscation" [ [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html "Icon of Obfuscation"] by Nick Matzke] , and Wells responded with an "A Response to Published Reviews" (2002) [ [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180# "A Response to Published Reviews"] by Jonathan Wells, 2002] .

Reception by creationists

In 2000, Dean Kenyon, a creationist and co-author of the controversial textbook Of Pandas and People, said that Wells "has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins for many decades." [ [http://www.iconsofevolution.com/reviews/ What people are saying about Icons of Evolution] Larry Witham, September 10, 2000.] Paul Chien, who translated "Icons" into Chinese, [ [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=52&isFellow=true Paul Chien] , Discovery Institute] writes: "Wells has done a great public service" by writing his book, adding that the book’s "extensive coverage of all the icons of Darwinism ... with extensive research notes, makes this volume a valuable reference for a professional biologist." [ [http://www.iconsofevolution.com/reviews/ What people are saying about "Icons of Evolution"] , official website] Both Chien and Kenyon are fellows of the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design and skepticism of evolution, with Wells.

Reception by the scientific community

The members of the scientific community that have reviewed "Icons of Evolution" have rejected his claims and conclusions. [cite news | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5525/2257a | title=Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm: A review by Eugenie C. Scott | publisher=Science (journal) |date= June 2001: Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2257 - 2258 | first=Eugenie | last= Scott | accessdate =2007-05-17] Scientists quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers. This includes biologist Bruce Grant, who said Wells was "dishonest" with his work [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 | accessdate =2007-05-17] and biologist Jerry Coyne who said Wells "misused" and "mischaracterized" his work on peppered moths. [ [http://www.jodkowski.pl/ka/PrattTribune005.html Letter to the editor] 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] . quotation|"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."] [cite news | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5583/940?ijkey=3Yam%2FBuhfWbGQ | title=Sour Grapes of Wrath: A review by Bruce S. Grant | publisher=Science (journal) |date= August 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5583, pp. 940 - 941 | first=Bruce | last= Grant | accessdate =2007-05-17] Specific rejections stand beside the already broader response of the scientific community in overwhelmingly rejecting intelligent design [See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) . 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] . 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] . [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. ] as a valid scientific theory, instead seeing it as pseudoscience [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] ] .

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" .

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." [ [http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm Creationism by Stealth] Jerry Coyne. Answers In Science, Tufts University.]

Of the motive of Wells' book Alan D. Gishlick wrote: "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", and "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". Likewise Frederick C. 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."cite news | url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14581 | title=Saving Us From Darwin | publisher=The New York Review of Books |date= Volume 48, Number 15 October 4, 2001 | first=Frederick | last= Crews | accessdate =2008-05-17]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci devoted section of his "" work to refute each point presented in Wells' "Icons of Evolution". [Massimo Pigliucci. "." (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 252-264] 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." [cite news | url=http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience//Pigliucci-IconsReview.html | title=No Icons of Evolution: A Review of: Icons of Evolution | publisher=BioScience |date= Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 411–414 | first=Massimo | last=Pigliucci | accessdate =2008-07-17] In 2005, Pigliucci debated Wells on Uncommon Knowledge on broader issues of evolution and intelligent design. [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 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-07-17]

Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross discuss Wells' book in '. One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that 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'." [Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. '. 2004, page 105] 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 . . ." [Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. '. 2004, page 105] 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)." [Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. '. 2004, page 105]

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."Richard Weisenberg, "Challenging ideas against teaching of evolution," Philadelphia Inquirer, Saturday, December 16, 2000 Page: A16 Edition: D Section: EDITORIAL] 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."

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, [ [http://texscience.org/files/fowler.htm Letter to Judith P. Fowler] Steven D. Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science] [ [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.] and PZ Myers. [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/textbooks_and_haeckel_again.php Textbooks and Haeckel again] PZ Myers. Pharyngula, January 25, 2006.] That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church [ [http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/print.html?pn=4 The new Monkey Trial] Michelle Goldberg. Salon, January 10, 2005.] and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism" [ [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] are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific 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. [ [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/mything_the_poi.html Mything the point: Jonathan Wells’ bad faith] John S. Wilkins. The Panda's Thumb March 30, 2004.] [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a.php Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part I] PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 24, 2007.] [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/jonathan_wells_knows_nothing_a_1.php Jonathan Wells knows nothing about development, part II] PZ Myers, Pharyngula, January 25, 2007.] [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/pz_myers_is_such_a_liar.php PZ Myers is such a LIAR!] PZ Myers, Pharyngula, November 3, 2006.] [ [http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/01/wells_at_yale.php "Whereby Jon Wells is smacked down by an undergrad in the Yale Daily News"] , Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, January 31, 2007.] The Discovery Institute has stated in response that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion." [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=444 The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells] from the Discovery Institute.]

Wells' Icons

Wells focused on 10 examples that he said were commonly used to teach evolution, which he called "icons". He evaluated how seven of these icons are treated in ten "widely used" high school and undergraduate textbooks. Although Wells established a grading scale for the textbooks, Alan Gishlick reported that the grading scale was poorly constructed and inconsistently used. Wells contended that the 10 case studies used to illustrate and teach evolution are flawed. Wells' ten "icons" were:

The last three "icons" - four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution - were discussed in the book, but Wells did not evaluate their coverage in textbooks. Although most textbooks cover the first seven "icons", they are not used as the "best evidence" of evolution in any of the textbooks.

Miller-Urey experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated what were believed to be the conditions on the early Earth and tested the Oparin-Haldane model for chemical evolution. In "Icons of Evolution" Wells argued that since the atmospheric composition used in the experiment is now known to be incorrect, it should not be used in textbooks. Wells said that current ideas about the atmospheric composition of the early earth makes this type of chemical synthesis impossible due to the presence of "significant" amounts of oxygen. Matzke contends that Wells mischaracterises pre-biotic levels of oxygen; although current estimates of the oxygen content are higher than those used in the experiment, they are still far more reducing than Wells suggests [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html Icon of Obfuscation Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution and why most of what it teaches about evolution is wrong] by Nick Matzke. Talk.Origins Archive] Gishlick discussed fourteen other Miller-Urey type experiments which were able to synthesise amino acids under a variety of conditions, including ones that were done under conditions like those currently believed to have been present in at the time when life is thought to have originated

Wells gave four textbooks a D grade, and the other six Fs. Gishlick contended that Wells criteria "stack the deck against [the textbooks] , ensuring failure. Wells grading criteria give a C or worse to any textbook that has a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus unless the figure caption "explicitly [said] that the experiment was irrelevant Thus, even the intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People", would only receive a C.

Darwin's tree of life

Wells discussed this use of phylogenetic trees in biology textbooks. He stated that textbooks do not adequately address the "Cambrian Explosion" and the emergence of "top-down" patterns of emergence of major phyla. He said that disagreements between morphological and molecular phylogenies disprove common ancestry and that textbooks should treat universal common descent as an unproven theory. Although Wells presented the Cambrian Explosion as happening too quickly for the diversity to have been generated through "Darwinian evolution", Gishlick pointed out that the Cambrian fauna developed over 60 million years. In addition, the emergence of major phyla does not mean that they originated during that time period, but rather that they developed the characteristic features that allow them to be classified into existing phyla. In addition, since phylogenies summarize data, they are not presented as "evidence of evolution", but rather as summaries.

Wells gave two textbooks Ds and the other eight Fs. Gishlick pointed out that Wells did not use the grading system consistently, criticising books for failing to discuss the Cambrian Explosion if they do so without calling it an explosion

Haeckel's embryos

PZ Myers reviewing the chapter in which Wells takes on Haeckel's Embryos writes

quotation|Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory." [...] While Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. [...] All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association. [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link Wells and Haeckel's Embryos] PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), February 15, 2007.] [emphasis in original]

In 2003, Holt, Rinehart and Winston said it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos from its textbook prior to publication. [ [http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/2003adopt/july_holt_oral.pdf Response to Oral Testimony] Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003.] The publisher said, ". . . in "Holt Biology Texas" of the Miller-Urey experiment carefully indicates the mistakes made in the assumptions about the early atomsphere. Throughout "Holt Biology Texas", the theory of evolution is described as a true scientific theory that will be refined and improved in the light of new evidence." [ [http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/2003adopt/july_holt_oral.pdf Response to Oral Testimony] Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Textbook: Holt Biology Texas, July 9, 2003. page 6]

To Wells' assertion in "Icons" that Haeckel's embryos and recapitulation theory appearing in biology textbooks is evidence of flaws in the teaching of evolution, Myers said "I'd say Jonathan Wells' claim is pretty much dead. Haeckel's work is not one of the pillars upon which evolution is built, and biologists have been saying so for at least 85 years (and more like over a century). Next time one of those clowns tries to haunt modern biology with the ghost of Ernst Haeckel, just look 'em in the eye and tell them they're full of crap." [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/exorcising_the_spectre_of_haec.php Pharyngula: Exorcising the spectre of Haeckel again ] ] The documentary Flock of Dodos challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that Haeckel’s Embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks. [ [http://www.flockofdodos.com/ Flock of Dodos] Randy Olson.] One critic of Wells said "If one reads Wells' criterion for his bogus A-F grading scale for the textbooks in Icons, it quickly becomes apparent that even publishing illustrations that resemble Haeckel's to illustrate his folly will garner the book a D, the only difference between a D and an F in Wells' mind being a 'D' grade book selecting a few embryos rather than publishing the full swath Haeckel originally doctored." [ [http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/it-burns-it-burns/ It burns… it burns!!] Brian Switek. Laelaps, February 7 2007.] PZ Myers says of Wells's claim about the use of Haeckel drawings in modern textbooks "They repeat the claim that Haeckel's embryos and all that silly recapitulation theory are still endemic in biology textbooks. It's not true, no matter how much they whine about it. I've gone over a number of these textbooks, and what you typically find at worst is a figure of the Haeckel diagrams for historical interest with an explanation that rejects recapitulation theory; more often what you find are photos or independently redrawn illustrations of the embryos." [ [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/discovery_institute_fires_its.php Pharyngula: Discovery Institute fires its first salvo in the War Against Dodos ] ]

Darwin's Finches

Concerning Darwin's Finches (Chapter 8), Dave Wisker wrote,

Cover picture

The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book "Early Man" in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

Icons of Evolution video

In 2002, a video titled "Icons Of Evolution" and produced by Coldwater Media. In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book. The video also covers the story of Roger DeHart, one of the Discovery Institute's media campaigns claiming discrimination. [http://www.seattleweekly.com/2002-05-15/news/not-the-whole-truth.php Not the Whole Truth] , Roger Downey, Seattle Weekly, May 15, 2002] The Seattle Weekly recalled the DeHart issue saying the video did not tell "the whole truth."

The video was mentioned in testimony during "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" by plaintiff Bryan Rehm. Rehm testified that Alan Bonsell, then-chairman of the board's curriculum committee, asked them to watch "Icons of Evolution" after teachers expressed concern that Bonsell did not believe in evolution and wished to see classroom discussions of evolution balanced "fifty-fifty" with creationism.

References

External links

Supporting 'Icons of Evolution'

* [http://www.iconsofevolution.com Icons of Evolution] – Official website
* " [http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf Survival of the Fakest Article] " by Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute
* [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=444 The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells] press release from the Discovery Institute
* " [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180 Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: Wells' Response to Reviews] " by Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute

Critical of 'Icons of Evolution'

* [http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong] ( [http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icons.pdf PDF] ) by Alan D. Gishlick from the National Center for Science Education, providing detailed criticism and rebuttal of each of Wells' 'icons'.
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/ Icons of Evolution FAQs] from Talk.Origins
* [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/339201 The Talented Mr. Wells] by Kevin Padian and Alan D. Gishlick from Quarterly Review of Biology, 2002
* [http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~massimo/handouts/resonable-to-icons.pdf A reasonably short guide to Wells' "icons" of evolution, and why they are not what he claims] by Massimo Pigliucci
* [http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Pigliucci-IconsReview.html No Icons of Evolution: A Review of] by evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci
* [http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/scott.pdf Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm] by Eugenie Scott
* [http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=90 Patience and Absurdity: How to Deal with Intelligent Design Creationism] by Paul R. Gross
* [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_Creationism%2BID.pdf Creationism and Intelligent Design by] Robert Pennock
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html Icon of Obfuscation] by Nick Matzke of talk.origins
* [http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencerevieweckhardtweber.pdf The Fact of Evolution: Implications for Science Education]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14581 Saving Us From Darwin] by Frederick C Crews
* [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_of_evolution.html Selection of critical reviews] from Don Lindsay
* [http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/IconsReview.html Icons of Evolution Review] by Dave Ussery