The author of the book, Jonathan Wells, is an american biologist.
The first, original edition of the book has been published in 2000 under Regnery Publishing.
The presented book is an analysis of 10 of the most commonly presented theories that in the public opinion confirm the aptness of darwinism. Wells suggests, that many societies treat these examples as the icons of evolution. In his book he treats a variety of matters, such as: the darwinian tree of life based on the fossils record, homology of vertebrates’ limbs, Haeckel’s embryo designs, fossils of archeopteryx, but also the known darwinian finches from Galapagos.
The scientist has concluded that the discussed icons of evolution are divergent from the empirical data, and has also appointed which of them were even falsified on purpose. The author puts an emphasis on the Haeckel’s designs, which were constructed in a way which would benefit the Darwin’s theory. Wells wonders, why the designs of the german scientist are still being part of academic biology literature, since it has already been agreed that the content of the designs are not covered by real facts. According to the author of Icons of Evolution, this situation has been developed due to lack of criticism towards Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The american scientist sustains, that the discredited icons should either be removed from the academic literature or kept as examples for the previous testimonies supporting darwinism, but which cannot be nowadays taken as reliable empirical data. If these examples will become purely a historical part of science, Wells wonders, what is the actual value of darwinism, when its most important icons do not prove what they should be proving?
Foreword to the polish edition
- Miller-Urey Experiment
- Darwin’s tree of life
- Homology of vertebrates’ limbs
- Haeckel’s embryons
- Archeopteryx – transitional form
- Biston betularia
- Darwin’s finch
- Fruit flies with 4 wings
- Equid fossils vs. directed evolution
- From apes to humans: the most important icon
- Science or myth?