Was Darwin Wrong?

As I was browsing around on the Discovery Institute’s website, I found an article written by Jonathan Wells entitled Why Darwinism is False. I’m taking Biogeography this semester, and one of the previous units we studied was on evolution and Darwin’s theory; we were also assigned readings from Coyne’s book. So, after having learned about Darwin’s theory on evolution and reading articles that support it, I decided to see how Mr. Wells went about opposing Darwin’s theory.
There is no doubt many people would find Well’s article convincing, especially if you are uneducated or uninformed in the area of science and how evolution works; or perhaps a super religious person and a believer in creationism, then this article would then be convincing to these groups. You would neither know how evolution works, or you wouldn’t believe in it. Wells is undoubtedly an educated person using the same methods that Brown and Herndl state in the article, beyond the realm of reason as “Our conversation and the knowledge we display locates us, the van full of academics, in relation to others whom we don’t know. Using knowledge in this way conveys and cements a sort of symbolic power; using this language so easily locates us on a social and educational hierarchy.” Wells sounds very scholarly and educated; he writes well, and does a good job of manipulating evidence to support his position. Not to mention the website is well designed and very professional looking.
Wells uses the exact method Brown and Hendl use in their article to analyze the truth put forth by the john birch society. Which means he only uses evidence to support the theory he is arguing for, and excludes important facts that are true, but do not support his argument.
For example in one part of his article he states: “According to Coyne, however, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation,” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”
Umm no, not quite.
After having just recently read parts of Coyne’s book on evolution and Darwin’s theory, the many flaws of this statement and his entire article were blatantly obvious to me. He leaves out all information that would contradict his theory, and only includes the facts that support his argument. Wells is wrong, we DID all descend from one species but many years of gradual changes in environment and isolating groups of organisms in different areas caused them to adapt to different environments to the point at which they evolved so differently from their common ancestor that it eventually caused the formation of entirely different species that were unable to interbreed. That right there is the reason there are many different species living on Earth.
The truth that Wells is arguing for in this article is that we did not all evolve from one species. He uses what he thinks will be perceived as logical evidence to support his argument. Any well informed or educated person is able to see through the flaws and holes in his argument; but it is persuasive and convincing enough to appeal to a vast majority of people, such as the uneducated, uninformed or people that already choose to believe this theory (most often based on religious beliefs).