Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth was published in 2000, and it immediately ignited a storm of controversy. Wells systematically dismantled 10 "icons of evolution," arguments for evolution based upon misinterpreted scientific evidence. He discussed spurious evidence, such as the Miller-Urey experiment that supposedly created amino acids, the building blocks of life, in a test tube and Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of various creatures that seriously misrepresented actual embryonic development to try to prove a common, shared pathway of development for diverse creatures.
In Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, Wells brings us up to date on the status of his previous icons and adds six more. Amazingly, 25 years later, the original icons continue to appear in textbooks and are still claimed as evidence of evolution even after they have been proven false or misleading. Wells explains the idea of “zombie science” as referring to discredited ideas that never seem to die. He says: “But whenever people persist in defending a materialist explanation after it has been shown to be inconsistent with the evidence, and is thus empirically dead, they are practicing zombie science” (p. 18).
The ten icons that Wells revisits from his previous book are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin’s tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs, Haeckel’s embryos, archaeopteryx, peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, four-winged fruit flies, fossil horses, and the descent of man from ape-like creatures. Scientists have learned a great deal about DNA, RNA, and genetics since 2000, so Wells devotes an entire chapter to genetics as evidence for and against evolution. Other new icons he discusses are walking whales, junk DNA, the development and structure of the human eye, antibiotic resistance, and cancer.
The chapter on the human eye was especially interesting to me because a few years ago I got into a discussion with a very knowledgeable and bright Christian who was trying to defend evolution based on the development of the human eye. I challenged him regarding the need for concurrent development of the optic nerve, the pertinent sections of the brain, and other components of a vision system—problems for which he had no answers. Wells digs even more deeply into both the arguments presented by evolutionists for the eye as an icon of evolution and the difficulties that undermine those arguments. I wish I had read this book before I had my discussion!
In Chapter 9, Wells explains why the continued proliferation of zombie science matters, saying, “[Z]ombie science has spread beyond science to religion and education”… and continues to corrupt science generally” (p. 23). He discusses even mainstream scientists’ discontent with evolutionary theory. Among other evidence of problems, he cites a 2016 public meeting of the Royal Society in London, the world’s most prestigious science society. The three-day meeting was intended to address issues with Neo-Darwinism, such as
Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types. (From opening remarks by Gerd Müller, as reported by Paul Nelson, https://scienceandculture.com/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/.)
The meeting’s organizers were disappointed that none of the attendees had anything helpful or new to offer, and Wells summarized the outcome: “[T]he meeting showed that current evolutionary theory is broken, and a growing number of scientists know it” (p.184).
Unfortunately, that information rarely gets related to the public. Instead, evolution is presented as a foundational concept within science, about which all doubts have been put to rest.
In Icons of Evolution, Wells wrote on a level that was accessible for a general audience, including teens. Zombie Science takes it up a notch, requiring the reader to track the occasionally complex scientific explanations. It’s written for a general adult audience but might be too challenging for most teens. Nevertheless, the book makes for a fairly quick read since the text itself is only 187 pages. (Endnotes and an index take up the remaining 50 pages.)
I try to keep abreast of scientific discoveries and controversies in relation to the origins debate, and Zombie Science is a concise resource for learning about several of them in one place.
