RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From Chapter 5 of Nic Tamzek's "Icons of Obfuscation":

"In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight
out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an
example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and
perpetuated even after being debunked (Haeckel's inaccurate drawings have
actually been 'exposed' multiple times since the 1800's, the Richardson et
al. (1997) article that Wells cites being only the most recent example)."

Gould is also quoted as saying that these drawings should not be used and
calls Biology to account for knowingly continuing to use them.

And this is a valid criticism.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Peter Loose
Cc: Gregory Arago; Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad;
AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

On 9/1/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, I am quite surprised at this response re Dr Jonathan Wells and The
> Peppered Moth. I haven't seen many papers in Scientific Journals that
> describe the work of others to be 'silly'.

Silly was meant as a mild term to describe the nature of Rev Wells'
musings. If you are interested in how scientists have described Rev
Wells' work, see the following
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_of_evolution.html

Scientists disagree:

    * Nic Tamzek has a chapter-by-chapter critique. He concludes that
Wells is deceptive and devious.
    * Dave Ussery thinks that Wells hasn't successfully attacked any
of the Icons. He gives the book an "F".
    * Several authors collaborated on a joint rebuttal.
    * Jerry Coyne says Wells has misrepresented him. For example, in
this interview Wells implies that Coyne agrees with him. Apparently he
doesn't.
    * Coyne subsequently reviewed this book in Nature. He accused
Wells of selective omission and deliberate misquotation.
    * Bruce Grant says that Wells has intentionally misquoted him
about peppered moths, and that Wells is dishonest.
    * Bruce Grant argues that the peppered moth evidence is
indisputable evidence for natural selection.
    * Richard Weisenberg gives an "F" to Wells' essay in the
Philadelphia Inquirer.
    * Massimo Pigliucci has debated Dr. Wells. He has a review of the
book, and also has a short point-by-point rebuttal of the book.
    * Jim Dawson thinks the book is poorly reasoned. [Warning:
BioMedNet requires free registration]
    * Kevin O'Brien has some answers for the questions Wells wants
students to ask.

Hope this helps.

>
> I wonder if we could elevate the level of discussion by reverting to well
> tried methods that are factual/evidence based in response to Wells' paper
on
> The Peppered Moth?

Let's explore some of Wells' silly notions, such as the accusation
that Majerus is abusing statistics, one which Wells has used before.
Mike Dunford has described some excellent (sic) examples at
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/wells_on_moths.html

So let's step back in time and marvel at the history of the peppered
moth. Oh did I mention that the powerpoint is also avalaible at
Majerus' lab? http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm

It started with Rev Wells making some irresponsible accusations and
assertions about the peppered moth, combined with some 'silly'
rhetoric that led many creationists to come to a flawed conclusion
that the peppered moth was not really a good example of natural
selection in action.

Amongst the assertions was the claim that the peppered moth
never/seldomly/not preferentially rests on tree trunks, even though
Majerus himself had sufficient data that would contradict such a
claim.

Based on Rev Wells' 'claims', the Discovery Institute and ID
proponents have been arguing that books used to teach need to also
teach the 'controversy', codewords for teaching the vacuity of ID.
Much has been made by ID proponents to argue this based on a
perception of flaws in Darwinian theory.

While most real scientists were quick to explain the Kettlewell
experiments accurately, a few questions remained, such as one raised
by Hooper in her 'silly' book Of moths and Men. Majerus decided to
address and test the relevance of these claimed flaws. Note that Wells
never performed any real experiments to test his claims. ID does not
seem to be in the business of doing the hard work that is typically
associated with science.

While perhaps silly may be a rather unscientific term to describe
Wells' musings, it seemed appropriate given the nature of his claims.
I have studied Kettlewells' original writings, as well as the various
'critiques', including Wells and Judith Hooper and I have read the
fascinating books by Majerus on moths. While it may not be clear to
those unfamiliar with the facts that Wells' assertions deserve a label
of 'silly', I believe that in the end, they will come to the
conclusion that silly is a rather mild conclusion.

What part of Wells' claims would you like to discuss first?

> To the person who asked me if I was in some way connected with the
> Unification Church may I say that the discussion here is not about
> personalities: the debate is, or should be, centred on relevant evidence.
In
> my opinion it should remain so.

<quote author=Wells>Father's words, my studies, and my prayers
convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism,
just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their
lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a
dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I
welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.</quote>

Sufficient evidence?

I have no Idea what Alexanian is musing about here.

> Blessings
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:56 PM
> To: Peter Loose
> Cc: Gregory Arago; Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad;
> AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>
>
> Read more here
>
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/wells_on_moths_a_case_study_in.php
> and note in the comments how people react to Wells' claims.
>
> I have been closely following the peppered moth debates and found that
> Wells' claims were at best silly and at worst running afoul of St
> Augustine's warnings.
>
> Remember how the ID movement made much of what they considered to be
> 'flawed experiments' and Darwinian myths. Of course they were wrong in
> most instances, but in this case, it took seven years to gather the
> data to fill in some of the gaps.
> Imagine if science had taken seriously ID's position, we would never
> have gathered the knowledge that shows the link between bird predation
> and the decline of the peppered moth.
>
> Notice how more recently Behe's court appearances (yes plural, more on
> that one later) have show how irrelevant ID's position has become and
> how disconnected from science ID has to be to make its claims.
> Imagine a world of science in which scientists follow ID's
> proposals... Shudder. Imagine a world where Christians would take ID's
> claims seriously and then run into these gaps that are filled, time
> after time. What an unnecessary risky approach to faith not to mention
> what a vacuous approach to doing science.
> Is this what we as Christians should support, encourage or expose? And
> as Christians and scientists?
>
>
> On 8/31/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, Wells is not happy since he had previously and erroneously made
> > many assertions about the peppered moth which were plainly wrong. Now
> > that science has once again closed another gap of our ignorance, ID
> > has to retreat, so what does it do? It makes silly and irrelevant
> > accusations rather than to focus on the science.
> >
> > Use references to Wells at your own risk but remember St Augustine. Do
> > we as Christians want to be associated with such obvious scientific
> > nonsense?
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.0/980 - Release Date: 30/08/2007
> 18:05
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:58:29 -0400