Jonathan Wells | |
|---|---|
| Born | John Corrigan Wells September 19, 1942 New York City, U.S. |
| Died | September 19, 2024 (aged 82) |
| Education | University of California, Berkeley (BS, PhD) Unification Theological Seminary (MA) Yale University (PhD) |
| Occupation | Author |
| Known for | Intelligent design advocate and anti-evolution activist |
| Title | Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute |
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (September 19, 1942 – September 19, 2024) was an American biologist, 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 and his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism."[2][3][4][5]
After gaining a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale University, Wells 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 second Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and had published in academic journals.
In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000), Wells argued 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 had been rejected by the scientific community.[4][6][10]
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).
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?
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.
CTH98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).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.