The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

EXPOSING DARWINISM

I could not believe my good fortune finding a copy of 'darwinism and intelligent design' this book is really very special. All of my life ive been taught in schools that evolution was a fact whean in reality there is not alot of solid evidence to bring a conviction even to the steps of a courthouse to suggest such a thing. Now this microbiologist jonathan wells has writtion a plain and easy to understand guide proving buyond a shadow of a doubt with documented research and charts that clearly show evolution is false. This publication has some very convincing evidence and the arthur holds 2 doctorates: one from yale and one from berkley .Included in this book are some very usful websites and other resourses and some other prominate scientists who came out agaist evolution and what happened to those educators who questianed evolution is also included in this very fast reading page turner.

3 out of 6 people found this review helpful.

Disappointed

I bought this book in an effort to objectively understand what Intelligent Design is about. From the very little that was actually said about the theory (about 6 pages) I have to conclude there is very little to the theory. If you would enjoy an endless barrage of Darwinism bashing, you¿ll enjoy the other 200 pages. Chapter 12 examines the many definitions of science and concludes (and I agree) that none would be universally accepted. But let me add another one anyway. I was raised Catholic, was taught, and believe that God created the heavens and the earth¿ That¿s my faith. Science, on the other hand, is the attempt to uncover the rules God put in place and how God uses those rules. ID argues that certain features of existing anatomies necessitate an intelligent designer. Fine, but there is a difference between design and implementation. Science asks, ¿How were these features implemented¿? Mr. Wells is a fine writer. If he gets back to the ¿what¿ and the ¿how¿ of science, I might be tempted to read his work again.

3 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

Bad, by not the worst creationist text ever

Hmmmmm, saying you are politically incorrect became an argument when? Was it 10 years ago? 20 years ago? It seems that if you are on the fringe right all you have to say is that you are politically incorrect. If this series of books was around 100 years ago then I am sure there would have been a book entitled, "the politically incorrect guide to opposing the right of women to vote" or "the politically incorrect to child labor", which would have of course advocated child labor. The rightwing by the way (they deny it now) opposed the right of women to vote and the end of child labor a century ago. Calling yourself politically incorrect is often today a sign of a lazy mind.

For example, I have yet to see a creationist (that is what these IDers are by the way) give a defense of their designer and its' origins. See, they don't want to call it a deity when they defend "Intelligent Design" because that gives the game plan away. No, they want those who arent' creationists to think they are giving a real scientific explanation for the origins of species instead of pushing far rightwing religious beliefs. If you believe that ID might be a real scientific explanation and that those who push it aren't pushing their religious beliefs, then people are trying to lie and deceive you. If they were honest and just admitted, "yeah, we believe the universe is 6000 years old and that there was a big wooden ship with dinosaurs on it ", then at least they would be honest.

Jonathan Wells, the book author, joined the Unification church of "Rev." Moon. Moon is a creationist (just like Wells who wouldn't admit it in a "ID" book) who has ripped off people who sent him money. Moon lives a lavish lifestyle based on fleecing people who send him money for religious reasons. I will give Wells credit for at least not doing that. Look, most Christians in America believe in evolution, if not purely natural at least guided. One can be a Christian and believe in evolution but for please don't take this as nothing else then a creationist rant devoid of real science, especially when it comes to the supposed designer. Talk origins is a great site if you want to learn more about evolution. Panda's Thumb is also a great evolutionist site and gives chapter by chapter critique of this book. I give it two stars because it like much of what is produced on the far right, is not bad propaganda.

2 out of 8 people found this review helpful.

must reading for all

I have read many reviews that condemn Wells' book when looking for mistakes or other problems with the book, but none of the reviews mentioned any valid reasons for condemning Well's book. I fail to see what is so controversial in this book, aside from the fact that it supports one side only. Books often do that. If you want to read about the other side, one often has to read another book. I do this all the time. Most everyone has a position on most controversial issues, and one expects a writer to take a position. This book tells one side which should be considered when any issue is studied. I found a few things I would quibble with, but most of the book was well documented (I looked up many of the references and saw no case where the information was taken out of context or misinterpreted). One quibble I have is Wells noted several examples of putative speciation and showed they did not pan out after more research. As Wells noted, Coyne and Orr listed 25 definitions for speciation, showing it is a very problematic concept. All one has to do is find an example of a change that fits one of these definitions, such as two life forms that once but in time no longer can sexually reproduce, and you have proved speciation. An example would be Great Danes and a Chihuahuas can no longer interbreed although they were both bred from dogs that go back to the wolf. These two breeds were bred by humans and thus one could call them two different species, proving speciation. Of course no one does this even though this example clearly fits the common definition of speciation. Yet examples exist where claims are made that speciation occurred by selecting one of the 25 potential definitions that fits and running with it.

2 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.