I think it's only fair to post links to my efforts to demonstrate the serious flaws in his arguments. I'm particularly proud of the series of articles I wrote when he published his book The Myth of Junk DNA. I went through every chapter and analyzed his arguments against junk DNA. It won't surprise anyone to learn that I found those arguments lacking in substance and in some cases I discovered that Wells had misrepresented the science.
Here are my posts.
- Jonathan, Moonies, and Junk DNA
- Junk & Jonathan: Part I—Getting the History Correct
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 2— What Did Biologists Really Say About Junk DNA?
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 3—The Preface
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 4—Chapter 1
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 5—Chapter 2
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 6—Chapter 3
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 7—Chapter 4
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 8—Chapter 5
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 9—Chapter 6
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 10—Chapter 7
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 11—Chapter 8
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 12—Chapter 9
- Junk & Jonathan: Part 13—Chapter 10
Jonathan Wells never responded directly to my criticism but he did respond to a comment that Paul McBride made on one of his blog posts. Paul asked him why he didn't respond to my post and here's what Wells said,
Oh, one last thing: “paulmc” referred to an online review of my book by University of Toronto professor Larry Moran—a review that “paulmc” called both extensive and thorough. Well, saturation bombing is extensive and thorough, too. Although “paulmc” admitted to not having read more than the Preface to The Myth of Junk DNA, I have read Mr. Moran’s review, which is so driven by confused thinking and malicious misrepresentations of my work—not to mention personal insults—that addressing it would be like trying to reason with a lynch mob.
This is typical of the attitude of most Intelligent Design Creationists. They are happy to publish lengthy books denegrating science and scientists but couldn't be bothered responding to criticism.
Here's are some other post of mine where I demonstrate the flawed thinking of Jonathan Wells.
- Jonathan Wells talks about junk DNA
- Jonathan Wells illustrates zombie science by revisiting junk DNA
- Brace yourselves, a new "Icons" is coming
- Jonathan Wells proves that life must have been created by gods
- Answering ten questions from the IDiots
- John Mattick vs. Jonathan Wells
- Some Questions for IDiots
- American Loons: #409 Jonathan Wells and #411 John West
- A Dishonest Intelligent Design Proponent?
- We Called Out IDiot Jonathan Wells, and He Folded
- Jonathan Wells Sends His Regrets
- Watch Jonathan Wells Screw Up
- Jonathan Wells Talks About Sequence Conservation
- Ohmygod! These photographs are faked!
- Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution
- Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots
- Jonathan Wells reviews the Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus Experiment
Did he have family?
ReplyDeletePresumably, but that's no excuse for lying, or pretending he wasn't full of it just because he's now dead. RIP though.
DeleteDe mortuis nil nisi bonum, and therefore here is my obituary for Wells, in full:
ReplyDeleteWells, for all his grandstanding against evolution, never produced original scientific research to back up his claims.
ReplyDelete-César
I attended the Memorial for Phillip Johnson at the Berkeley First Presbyterian Church. I spoke with J. Wells, picking him because he was standing alone. (I remember pretty clearly what we said, but I ama bit hazy about the precise order in which we said it.)
ReplyDeleteI asked about the discussion of embryonic gills in his Icons of Evolution book. I pointed out that he only mentioned the external gill grooves, but not the pouches and embryonic gill bars. He tried to cut me off saying that I shouldn't call them gill bars because they weren't any actual gills. I said I didn't care what they were called but the embryonic bars were there, along with the cranial nerves 5, 7, 9, and 10, also the arteries, just as would be needed for making gills. He tried to claim these parts were needed for making a "neck" -his word- but I pointed out that the pattern of arteries for gills is very different from a neck, where you just need simple tubes running from the heart to the head. At about this point he pleaded ignorance, claiming thathe didn't know about all the other gill parts besides the grooves. This from a man with a PhD in biology from Berkeley!