Surfing the net, I came across this interesting article. It's an article from a person's point of view of the discrepancies between what is written in Biology textbooks about evolution and scientific fact. Granted, the perspective is probably at least a tad biased because the writer of the article is a "creationist" (i.e. someone who believes that life was created by a higher being as in God) and was a creationist before thinking of writing the article. But I believe the paper serves a purpose in getting readers to "look at [selective adaptation and the accepted mechanism of evolution] critically."
I'm a bit shocked after reading the article. I'm very familiar with the evidence (or should I say supposed evidence) Wells examines. I've studied the Miller-Urey experiment, embryo development drawings, the tree, homologies, the peppered moths, and Darwin's finches a number of times. Actually, after reading the article, I wouldn't say that I actually studied these things. It was really more like I read about them over and over again. I'm no evolutionary biologist. I've only studied the stuff to the undergrad biology level. Naturally, I've studied some of the evidences a little more than the others. I've only read about the finches a few times while the peppered moths and the Miller-Urey experiment have been mentioned a number of times starting from junior high school science classes. And I've participated in university level labs where we drew Darwinian trees from observing homologies in vertibrate species. But I'm still familiar with all of the evidence Jonathan Wells attacks in the article.
I can't endorse this article as being true because I haven't seen the refuting evidence for myself. Regardless, it's really got me thinking about things I've been taught that I've never doubted as being anything but true. The article's argument against the Miller-Urey experiment and peppered moths were especially thought provoking/troubling to me. Whaddya guys think?