[3][4] Representatives of majority views in the scientific community have criticized the book and regard it as pseudoscientific, at the extreme of the struggle against evolutionary science.

[5] It was criticised for its claims that schoolchildren are deliberately misled, and its conclusions as to the evidential status of the theory of evolution, which is considered by scientists to be the central unifying paradigm of biology.

"[7] Gishlick wrote a more detailed critique for the National Center for Science Education in his article "Icon of Evolution?

Matzke concluded, "Icons of Evolution makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship", and that "Icons contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and 'argumentative sleight-of-hand', the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing".

In fact, despite his touted scientific credentials, Wells doesn't produce a single piece of original research to support his position.

[1] Likewise Frederick Crews of The New York Review of Books wrote: "Wells mines the standard evolutionary textbooks for exaggerated claims and misleading examples, which he counts as marks against evolution itself.

Pigliucci also wrote an article-length review in BioScience and concludes, "Wells, as much as he desperately tries to debunk what to him is the most crucial component of evolutionary theory, the history of human descent, is backed against the wall by his own knowledge of biology.

One issue they highlighted was Wells' accusation that Haeckel forged images of embryos that are allegedly still in biology books.

Forrest and Gross noted that Haeckel's, "a conservative Christian youth", work was "'fudged', as biologist Massimo Pigliucci says, not 'faked'."

"[21] Richard Weisenberg, biologist at Temple University, wrote an open letter to Wells in The Philadelphia Inquirer noting "Evolution by natural selection and the origin of life are entirely different subjects.

"[22] He continued, "I can only conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural selection.

"[22] The response of the single publisher named by Wells as having revised textbooks on the basis of his work has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science,[23][24] and PZ Myers.

[25] That Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church[26] and a statement describing those studies as learning how to "destroy Darwinism"[27] are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.

"[33] In 2009, Patricia Princehouse, Professor at Case Western Reserve University, testified in a Mount Vernon City School District hearing that Icons was full of fraudulent representations of material in science textbooks.

[1] Wells said that current ideas about the atmospheric composition of the early Earth makes this type of chemical synthesis impossible due to the presence of "significant" amounts of oxygen.

Gishlick notes that even the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, would only receive a C. The claim that it is irrelevant is incorrect, as the experiment marked a major advance in studies of the origin of life, its results are still valid, and for teaching purposes it shows the methods of good experimental science.

[1] Wells discussed the use of phylogenetic trees in biology textbooks, though Charles Darwin himself only included a schematic diagram in his works.

There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas.

[39] [emphasis in original]In 2003, Holt, Rinehart and Winston said it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel's drawing of embryos from its textbook prior to publication.

"[42] The documentary Flock of Dodos challenges Wells' assertion, widely repeated by design advocates, that Haeckel's embryos are widespread in evolution textbooks.

[43] Science communicator Brian Switek said "If one reads Wells' criterion for his bogus A–F grading scale for the textbooks in Icons, it quickly becomes apparent that even publishing illustrations that resemble Haeckel's to illustrate his folly will garner the book a D, the only difference between a D and an F in Wells' mind being a 'D' grade book selecting a few embryos rather than publishing the full swath Haeckel originally doctored.

Jonathan Wells does not sufficiently address the biographical or scientific literature on Darwin's Finches to enable the reader to make an informed decision regarding his argument.

The story appeared in York County newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included "communicating with ‘legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students" to “address the topic of ID in a scientifically and educationally responsible way” in public schools.

He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent.Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism.

... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution.

It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory.