Wells encourages more than a modest dose of skepticism, and gives the example of the supposed “backward wiring of the vertebrate eye” as a case in point.
You will be astonished by how corrupt science can become when reviewers are “very, very vigilant” to protect consensus science.
Newton was arguing from science, not religion. But that doesn’t fit the Epicurean mythos that religion opposes naturalism while science confirms it.
It’s not, how shall I say this, an audience guaranteed to be sympathetic to a critique of Darwinism and its social impact, even one as thoroughly researched and accurately told as this.
Unfortunately, Pinker’s overweening faith in science as a reliable path to the truth has its own problems.