Who’s the zombie here?


Jonathan Wells has a “new” book — he’s rehashing that dreadful crime against honesty and accuracy, Icons of Evolution. It’s titled, ironically, Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, and apparently, from Larry Moran’s discussion, it sounds like pretty much the same old book, flavored this time with an obstinate refusal to honestly consider any new evidence, or previous rebuttals of his previous distortions.

I like the cover, though, but only for its stunningly oblivious lack of self-awareness and self-referential nature. Wells is kind of a zombie, his arguments were destroyed 20 years ago, and he just keeps shambling back.

Comments

  1. Owlmirror says

    Creationists have been predicting the death of “Darwinism” for a long, long time. Evolutionary biology stubbornly fails to be dead.

    Solution: “Darwinism” did die. It just rose up and lurched from the grave, ignoring its own fatal demise.

    Grr! Arrgh!

    ObZombies: TZT!

  2. kesci says

    Well that title was confusing. I thought he was writing about Jesus. The evolution of Jesus.

  3. Jeremy Shaffer says

    To be fair, this marks some improvement among creationists. They’ve always been a good 25 years behind the times, but are only 10 years too late to really capitalize on the zombie craze. At this rate, they might accept the theory of evolution in the early 22nd century.

  4. emergence says

    Hey, if PZ or anyone else here that understands junk DNA has a moment, I’m wondering how I can gain a better understanding of the subject myself. I’m a biology student, so presumably I’ll learn about it in any classes on genetics I take eventually, but I’m wondering if there are any books or scientific studies on the subject that I should read in addition to my college work. Does anyone have any suggestions?

  5. Akira MacKenzie says

    UGH! I am so sick and tired of the zombie fad already! How long until the survivalist wannabes flog this horror tired trope to a final death just like goth and emo kids did to vampires back in the 90s?

    Find another goddamn monster to exploit, pop culture!

  6. Rich Woods says

    @Jeremy Shaffer #4:

    but are only 10 years too late to really capitalize on the zombie craze. At this rate, they might accept the theory of evolution in the early 22nd century.

    Your optimism is so charming…

  7. emergence says

    Another thing about Larry Morgan’s review, where does Wells get off calling evolution a science stopper? Most of the reason why creationism is considered crap by real scientists is that it requires ridiculous miracles and lapses in the laws of physics to work. Rejecting the results of ENCODE is nothing compared to the sheer number of scientific principles you have to reject to be a creationist. Also, science is all about describing the processes behind the natural world. You can’t construct an actual scientific theory around the process of special creation because there’s no process to describe. Evolutionary biologists can actually formulate theories to explain how organisms are selected by their environment, and how mutations produce new genes. Wells wants to replace a scientific theory that has actual explanatory power with a miracle-laden fairytale parody of a scientific theory.

  8. Ichthyic says

    where does Wells get off calling evolution a science stopper?

    it’s projection. it’s how they roll.

Leave a Reply