Reference Source: < http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_10questions.htm >

Like most other Creationist documents, The "Ten Questions" composed by Jonathan Wells are intended to obfuscate and distract, and have little bearing on the imparting of actual, useful information.

Most "anti-evolution" information is generated by people with "anti-science" agendas to support, who apply a method known as Encapsulation, and who look for ways to support that instead of finding information to learn from. The current "Intelligent Design" agenda is for that purpose only, and is filled with misinformation and supported by a lack of understanding of science's true mission, which ID tends to perpetuate.

For those who do not know, the only agenda pushing science is the discovery of knowledge about the way things work in our world, and in our universe. Scientists want to teach young people about their discoveries, impart an understanding to them, and enable them to gain the knowledge needed to take their place as future generations take over their work.

It is wrong and immoral for supporters of outmoded ideas and concepts to twist facts and generate misinformation aimed to stall the scientific advancement from which we all benefit. The truth is, their attempts to thwart science serve mainly to advance it, since it stirs otherwise quiet and reticent people to defend their concepts and broadcast thoughts and opinions they might, under other circumstances, have kept to themselves.

I happen to be one person who appreciates science, who believes these counter-progressive concepts should be presented and debunked in classrooms just so students get to see science in action and get to practice the scientific method. It should be done in a way that compares the Scientific Method to the methods of Encapsulation in all the ways that make their too-obvious failures transparent to students of all ages, who would gain a better understanding of science's methods as a result.

 That should always be taught first. Once the rigorous working of science is fully appreciated, Creationism, in any of its forms, cannot stand up in a true science classroom due to its entire and complete lack of experimental support, absolutely no data gained by any of science's time-honored methods, nor any honest way to test its claims.

Scientists, and honest science teachers, and science itself, can only gain ground by allowing this to happen. Honestly presented information given with free access to students thoroughly grounded in the scientific method, who are then challenged to test the alternative theories with carefully documented procedures they develop, can only advance an understanding of true science in the general population. Science has nothing to hide, and so it does not need smothering.

An important fact to become aware of is that evolution is not about 'advancement', it is about 'adaptation'. If 'adaptation' requires evolution to appear to be going in reverse, or for more than one structure of a life form to be present in the same span of time (even in close proximity), that is what occurs.

Were I an I.D. Creationist, I would be working very hard in the opposite direction they want to go now, to keep testing and assessment of my theories out of the public arena. Science has nothing to fear from misinformation and false ideas. The only challenge is to heighten the common understanding in the general populations. Standing all the alternatives side by side and broadcasting their failures while challenging them to honestly defend themselves will accomplish that. Look below for an example.

(Wells' questions appear in italics. The science view is presented immediately following each item in bold.)

• ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

In my view, evolution begins far earlier than the origins of life. It begins at the inception of the original event, from which all else followed. Abiogenesis, the origins of life, however, are a matter of ongoing research not part of evolution, and have not been settled. It has just come to my attention that the Spitzer telescope has just discovered the basic building blocks in the universe of 10,000,000 years ago, well before our solar system was formed (August 10, 2005 issue of the Astrophysical Journal), waiting for the right conditions to present themselves, as has likely happened all over the universe. (About my book)

• DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Are you claiming that fossils of horses, monkeys, alligators, dinosaurs, elephants, whales, and human beings can all be found in the pre-Cambrian layer? I think not, but your carefully worded question implies that. Although the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" predates modern life forms, some of the modern, well-developed features can be found in those rudimentary early fossils. Evolution could be regarded as "Nature's Experiment". No evolutionary biologist would claim that Nature only tried out one thing, then gave up and let it all develop from there.

• HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

The two forces at work to drive Biological Evolution are 'homology' and 'convergence'. Homology refers to shared features that result from a common ancestor. Convergence refers to development of a feature due to adaptation pressures. Science does not assume, but tests for common ancestry by comparing for commonality among many features. The results of such tests provide evidence, whereas hypotheses only provide the statements to be tested, and do not in themselves constitute proof nor assumptions.

That is the main difference between the methods of science and of those who regard their hypotheses as "revealed", and claim the revelation to constitute 'proof'. In science, hypotheses are statements to be tested. Tests must be passed and documented before hypotheses can be accepted as theories. The I.D. people want to call evolution "only a theory" in an attempt to elevate their hypothesis without having to earn the right.

• VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

Textbook drawings are not 'evidence'. Presentations used as illustrative examples of something being described in the accompanying text is not 'evidence'.

As life forms branched out into amphibious, mammalian, reptilian, birds, fish, etc, they also diverged from the traits of the earliest examples. Mammals will share more commonality between them than they will with fish, for example. That will also show in their embryonic stages. The purchase of a more modern set of textbooks will put you current with the field.

• ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

The suggestion to update your references also applies here. It is like claiming that apes and humans could not exist at the same time because of the misconception that apes and monkeys are our ancestors. They are more like our cousins.

I had not heard of the obsolete term "Missing Link" for so long I had forgotten about it. The archaeopteryx is said to be a transition fossil, and displays the development of bird-like features through time. These were relatives of birds and reptiles that shared the same time period with them.
SOME (of many) REFERENCES:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html>
<http://dinosauricon.com/genera/archaeopteryx.html> (It should be noted that, even in presentations of this sort, "Missing Link" is used, even though it is not correct. It ought to be regarded as 'slang' and a part of common speech, and not officially recognized in any formal manner).

• PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

Why do pickup trucks get dropped from the sky on television? Everybody knows they can't fly, and they most certainly do not jump off roofs of buildings! Everybody knows those demonstrations were staged! It seems only too obvious their manufacturers are not claiming that about them, nor do they intend their products to be used that way, but they do want to make a point about their toughness and durability.

Can textbook publishers have the same goals, and do something to provide an example and make a point? As above, pictures in textbooks are used to illustrate, and do not "prove" anything. Did you learn anything while you looked in your ancient textbooks for things to criticize, or would that have gone against your ulterior purposes?

• DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

As stated in my introduction to this, Evolution is an adaptive process, and simply not answerable to the misconception that it is claimed to be a force for advancement. Advancement seems to be the way it goes only from the view of human perceptions, as we consider ourselves to be a younger species than,  and 'advanced' over, those we consider to be 'lower' life forms. Now: With that in mind, how can you say "no net evolution occurred" (let alone explain what that might mean)? If the finches 'adapted', they evolved exactly as evolution says they will.

• MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

This is supposed to prove something, right? DNA supplies raw materials for evolution, and the four winged creatures prove science is getting a handle on it. That they cannot survive in a natural environment but do survive in the laboratory only serves to demonstrate the feasibility of "adaptation" and survival of the fittest. In this case, the fitness is for life in a laboratory.

In Nature, that which is not a successful "fit" with the circumstances it got born into, will not survive nor get to reproduce. Am I saying that's why you never find four-winged fruitflies in Nature? Well, yeah. Would you volunteer to pay the toll while those scientists learn to put muscles and an operating control system on those extra wings?

• HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Again with the illustrations as proof business! Maybe, if you'd learn to read instead of just looking at pictures, you would have discovered the answer in your books!

To begin with, there seems to be three prominent forms of existence: Plants, animals, and dead stuff. We are not plants and we are not dead stuff. That leaves Animals. The only people I have ever observed to make the claim that we are around "because of a mere accident" are the arrogant Creationists, who suppose themselves to be a special construct built to entertain a bored god. They cannot demonstrate even the smallest twinkling of evidence, and expect us to take them at their word. A complete absence of verifiable evidence provides a good example of why their word is not considered valid.

• EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Now, consider this: Evolution is an ongoing natural process. Darwin stated and explored a theory about that process. That evolution is a fact has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, nor anybody else's. Taking two separate items and combining them into one does not justify your complaint nor make it true: Evolution is a fact even if Darwin's (or anybody else's) theory about it is absolutely wrong. That Intelligent Design is completely erroneous has no effect on Evolution's factual basis, even if they somehow disprove Darwin's theory. That Creationism has not one iota of evidence to support it has not one drop of effect on Evolution's warehouses full of evidence and data to support that it is, in fact, a fact of Nature.

Darwin's hypothesis about natural selection, upon which evolutionary theory has been built, has been tested in many ways over the century and a half that has passed since he originally posited it. Genetics does nothing other than verify it and offer corrections. DNA does nothing other than explain it, demonstrate it as useful, and offer corrections. Predictions serve only to verify it and offer corrections. New discoveries found in fossils dug from the ground, and alive in our own time, serve only to verify it and offer corrections.

All of it together serves mainly to refute Creationism in any of its transmogrifications, including Intelligent Design, leaving all of us to wonder to what Mister Wells refers with this question, as "misrepresentation of the facts". It seems he, and other Creationists, are the ones guilty of that, and of breaking the trust they demand of their followers, who depend on them for truthful information.

Another view of these Ten Questions, written by  Alan Gishlick, can be found at NCSE's website