Back جوناثان ويلز Arabic جوناثان ويلز ARZ Jonathan Wells Czech جاناتان ولز Persian John Corrigan Wells Finnish Jonathan Wells Galician Jonathan Wells ID Jonathan Wells Italian ジョナサン・ウェルズ Japanese Jonathan Wells Portuguese

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Jonathan Wells
Born
John Corrigan Wells

1942 (age 81–82)
United States
Alma materUniversity of California, Berkeley, Unification Theological Seminary, Yale University
OccupationAuthor
Known forIntelligent design advocate and anti-evolution activist
TitleSenior Fellow, Discovery Institute

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American theologian and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of its founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents and other creationists to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution.[2][3][4][5] He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church's inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and has published in academic journals.

In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000), Wells argues that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were grossly exaggerated, distorted truth, or were patently false. Wells said that this shows that evolution conflicts with the evidence, and so argued against its teaching in public education.[6][7][8] Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said that Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[7][9] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[4][6][10]

  1. ^ Wells, Jonathan (November 2004). "Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research" (PDF). Progress in Complexity, Information and Design. 3.1.2. ISSN 1555-5089. OCLC 315922913. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-05-13. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  2. ^ Gishlick, Alan D. (November 23, 2006). "Icon 4 — Haeckel's Embryos". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-12-17.
  3. ^ Wells, Jonathan. "Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D." True Parents Organization. Denver, CO. Retrieved 2013-12-12.
  4. ^ a b Forrest, Barbara (March 2000). Dembski, William A (ed.). "The Rise and Fall of Baylor University's Michael Polanyi Center (Barbara Forrest's Letter to Simon Blackburn)". DesignInference.com. William Dembski. Archived from the original on 2008-01-06. Retrieved 2013-12-12. As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution. Quoted in "Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses" (PDF) by William A. Dembski (May 14, 2005).
  5. ^ "Comparing Darwin's Method with That of Scientific Creationists". 2008-12-31.
  6. ^ a b Wells, Jonathan. "INTRODUCTION to ICONS of EVOLUTION: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong". Icons of Evolution. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on 2013-12-29. Retrieved 2013-12-12. Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals.
    [...]
    ...much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?
  7. ^ a b Coyne, Jerry (April 12, 2001). "Creationism by stealth". Nature (Book review). 410 (6830): 745–46. Bibcode:2001Natur.410..745C. doi:10.1038/35071144.
  8. ^ Wells, Jonathan (June 12, 2002). "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: A Response to Published Reviews". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-08-13. Several of them grossly exaggerate or distort the truth, while others are patently false. Yet they are found year after year in almost all textbooks dealing with evolutionary theory, and they invariably accompany other material promoting that theory. When someone points out that the textbook examples misrepresent the facts, Darwinists don't rush to correct them. Instead, they rush to defend them.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference CTH98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Humburg, Burt (August 26, 2006). Cartwright, Reed A. (ed.). "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Why Should Words Have Meanings? (Chapter 1)". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archived from the original on November 26, 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-04. In order to advance his thesis, Wells has to convey the idea that 'Darwinism' pits itself against traditional Christianity: to allow pupils to learn it is to give them up to atheism, decadence, liberalism and to lose the culture war.
    Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution. In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against 'Darwinism', which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn't exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution.
    [...]
    Easily, one of the prominent faults of Wells's screed is a pervasive confusion between terms. Words, like 'Darwinism' and 'Traditional Christianity', seem to mean whatever Wells wants them to mean for that specific sentence. In many cases words are used without regard for his own stated definitions and usually without regard to usage elsewhere in his book. There are several possible reasons for this confusion in terms. First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue. Second, if you review the acknowledgements page, you'll read how Wells used many authors to help him prepare this text. It is possible that Wells's editorship was so insufficient that he allowed a term that makes up part of the book's very title to have a flexible meaning. My suspicion is that there was both disparity between the understanding of key terms by different authors as well as an intention to confuse.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search