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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

> Specifically, what is the false accusation about the peppered moth that
> Art has written in his website?
>
> Moorad

This is what I wrote in a previous post citing Chadwick;

Here is something from your Earth History site by Art Chadwick;;

"Photographs of moths resting on tree trunks were, up until recently, found
in every general biology textbook. Even this simplest of examples of what
evolution is purported to do, this celebrated test case for real evolution
in action, is, shamefully, a misrepresentation of nature. The moths shown in
the photographs were invariably either dead specimens glued to the tree, or
inactive moths which have been carefully placed there. This situation is now
being more widely recognized in the literature (see, for example, Journal of
Heredity 89:465 and Evolutionary Biology 30:299)."

As an interventionist, I have no difficulty with the peppered moth story if
it were true. The shifting of the frequency of alleles, and a whole lot more
change must have occurred in the course of life on earth. But what is
especially troubling is that these stories, known to be false since the late
1980's at least, persisted in the textbooks of biology 20 years after the
true nature of the story was known, as illustrations of the process of
evolution. Not just the peppered moth story, but the Haeckelian embryo
falsifications and the Miller-Urey experiments are represented as the
highest examples of what naturalism can do. This is sad. Darwinists are
apparently so desperate for confirmatory examples that they have to hold on
to and promote these instances as the very best examples of evolutionary
science, knowing full well that they distort truth."

Chadwick describes the use of posed moths as "shamefully, a
misrepresentation of nature" concluding "knowing full well that they distort
truth."

This is an accusation of devious practice rather than poor science and is
thus a false accusation. In fact with the state of 1950s cameras he could
not have done anything else.

Chadwick has two alternatives - either to remove these accusations from his
web article or to wilfully break the 9th commandment.

Let's see what he does and I rely on you to point it out to him.

As a Christian he has only one course of action.

Michael

P. S. My concern here is not whether the Peppered Moth demonstrates
evolution. I find it a weak arguemnt. My concern is the accuracy and honesty
of presenting Kettlewell's work rather than assessing it. i frankly dont
care whether Kettlewell was correct or not, and reckon that Majerus's
reassessment is right.

>
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 4 11:35:08 2007