and over 2 million other books are available for Amazon Kindle . Learn more
  • RRP: £13.17
  • You Save: £0.21 (2%)
FREE Delivery in the UK.
Only 3 left in stock (more on the way).
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.
Gift-wrap available.
Quantity:1
The Politically Incorrect... has been added to your Basket
+ £2.80 UK delivery
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Ships from the USA; Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery. Hot deals from the land of the sun. This book has a light amount of wear to the pages, cover and binding.
Trade in your item
Get a £1.29
Gift Card.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (Politically Incorrect Guides) Paperback – 25 Aug 2006


See all 6 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
£12.96
£6.84 £2.01

Frequently Bought Together

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (Politically Incorrect Guides) + The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (Politically Incorrect Guides)
Price For Both: £24.73

Buy the selected items together


Trade In this Item for up to £1.29
Trade in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (Politically Incorrect Guides) for an Amazon Gift Card of up to £1.29, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Learn more

Product details

  • Paperback: 273 pages
  • Publisher: Regnery Publishing Inc (25 Aug. 2006)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1596980133
  • ISBN-13: 978-1596980136
  • Product Dimensions: 23 x 18.7 x 1.8 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 2.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 654,706 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

2.6 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 20 people found the following review helpful By Remon Van Vliet on 29 April 2008
Format: Paperback
I've bought this book primarily because I was looking for a relatively objective book on darwinism versus ID. In short, this book wasn't it. I'd like to point out I'm not a fanatic on either side of the fence, it's just an interest of mine.

To begin with, this book is far from objective. That in and by itself is fine as it's certainly not the only book that takes either side of the debate. What I object to however is that I cant escape the feeling that this book does little more than bash darwinism in a way that's not at all convincing. The author certainly makes a few valid points but even those seem to get somewhat distorted by the author's almost religious devotion to ID, this at the cost of some credibility. I eventually managed to read through the entire book but it took some effort. Another small pet peeve is that the book is extremely repetitive. Some points are repeated (I counted) 7 times. There's only so many times a bad analogy involving pig intestines hits home.

Look further.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
14 of 25 people found the following review helpful By Gibbs on 28 July 2007
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Wells and others are entitled to attack neo-Darwinian theory, and to object to the scandalous way that critics of that theory are sometimes treated. Unfortunately, this book is poorly researched: Wells either misunderstands or consciously misrepresents the neo-Darwinian case - especially when describing Richard Dawkins' demonstration that significant order can be elicited quite quickly from chaos. There are indeed problems about how one viable organism can be the ancestor of another viable organism when intervening stages, almost by definition, must be less adapted than either the first or the last stage, but these problems have answers, well described in the literature. It isn't absurd to think we might detect signs of intelligent design (that is what SETI tries to do), and it isn't absurd to wonder whether some features of our evolutionary history have been, in some way, manipulated, by something or other. Nor is it absurd to think that natural laws, archetypes and ideals have a part to play in that history. But this is too polemical and too ignorant a book to persuade anyone not already convinced that there is an establishment conspiracy against the theory of 'intelligent design'.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
42 of 75 people found the following review helpful By Darwin Researcher on 22 Jan. 2007
Format: Paperback
I have read many reviews that condemn Wells' book when looking for mistakes or other problems with the book, but none of the reviews mentioned any valid reasons for condemning his work. I fail to see what is so controversial in this book, aside from the fact that it supports one side only. Books often do that. If you want to read about the other side, one often has to read another book. I do this all the time. Most everyone has a position on most controversial issues, and one expects a writer to take a position when writing a book. This book tells one side which should be considered when any issue is studied. I found a few things I would quibble with, but most of the book was well documented (I looked up many of the references and found no case where the information was taken out of context or misinterpreted). One quibble I have is Wells noted several examples of putative speciation and showed they did not pan out after more research. As Wells noted, Coyne and Orr listed 25 definitions for speciation, showing it is a very problematic concept. All one has to do is find an example of a change that fits one of these definitions, such as two life forms that at one time could reproduce but in time no longer can sexually reproduce, and you have proved speciation. An example would be Great Danes and a Chihuahuas can no longer interbreed, although they were both bred from dogs that go back to the wolf. These two breeds were bred by humans and one could call them two different species, proving speciation. Of course no one does this even though this example clearly fits the common definition of speciation. Yet examples exist where claims are made that speciation occurred by selecting one of the 25 potential definitions that fits and running with it.
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
22 of 41 people found the following review helpful By A. D. Crysell on 30 Nov. 2006
Format: Paperback
I suppose it depends on your point of view but I was lucky to have this book on an overnight flight from Tampa to London last summer and it passed the time admirably. As for being a source of useful information on Darwinism and intelligent design, well, it's not really. It characterises Darwinism in a straw man way so it is easy to knock down. It takes intelligent design as well proven and philosophically sound. It isn't. This is a funny book, unintentionally in many cases, and should not be treated in any way as a good argument against Darwinism. There are plenty of books available for balance - if you don't like Dawkins then read Gould, or Ridley (either of them) or Steve Jones... That's just for starters.

This book gets 1 star because I cannot give it zero.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again


Feedback