Thursday, August 30, 2007
Peppered moths: Alive or dead?
What bothers me here is how the biologist proclaims not just that peppered moths prove evolution, but they also disprove God. That's quite an accomplishment for a bunch of dead moths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I assume you're referring to the point marked (26) in Wells' text.
In which case I recommend you read this, particularly the last section; I'm afraid Wells comes somewhere near rock bottom in terms of credibility when it comes to these things.
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/wells_on_moths_a_case_study_in.php
FWIW, I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that evolution disproves God.
snafu
I second Anon's point. Follow the link provided. Look at the context of the quote provided. I defy you to read Majerus's remarks in context and say that Wells is doing anything other than perpetrating a lie on this topic, with malice aforethought.
Creationists lie. They are paid to lie. Atheists often come off as angry because creationists lie so brazenly, and religious "moderates" give them cover.
Defend dualism. Defend opposition to the war in Iraq. Defend the Kalam argument or any other thing we can reasonably disagree on. But I'm begging you, don't soil yourself with Wells.
In response to that science blog, the article is simply ridiculous with the same accusations against creationists. I won't even bother answering the whole argument but either they're clearly ignorant of Jonathan Wells' arguments or they purposely deceive others. Evolutionists I guess are paid to lie...where as creationists don't really get paid so that point is rather moot. Of course you can attack their integrity but that's a shame though, since that's far from the point of the argument.
Now they go on to claim that Wells omits the fact that before 1848, the black moth was entirely unknown...But it just so happens that Wells actually mentioned this fact in the article!
While Darwin was writing, however, industrial pollution was killing the light-colored lichens that covered many tree trunks in the U. K., exposing the dark bark underneath. Before this, populations of peppered moths had consisted almost entirely of a light-colored variety; afterwards, moth populations in urban areas consisted mostly of a dark-colored or “melanic” variety.
LOL I can't help but laugh at this!! Right on the paper he mentioned that fact but also keep in mind that the sub-title is "some" background and it's hardly meant to be a full explanation. He also wrote about it in his "Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths" (1999) so it's really hard to believe that they simply forgot about this. This comes to no surprise to creationists as evolutionists must resort to misrepresentations and ad hominem attacks in order to make it look like we made misrepresentations. I am sure creationists have made errors but it's bad to say it's intentional...some have accused us with the bombardier beetle(e.g Dawkins) of committing falsehood but in reality, it was simply a translation error. Before making accusations, I suggest you research more.
Besides, no one is stating that this is not a good example of natural selection but the dispute enters whether this is evidence for common descent. While micro-evolution is surely an observed fact, as the moth has demonstrated, it is hardly evidence for evolution. In response to Anonymous's point, while you rightly point out that evolution doesn't disprove Go and the he bias in this biologist is rather apparent. He should've not made such conclusions and kept it to himself. Why would this guy make such a illogical argument? He is deliberately misrepresenting the situation... This is all I'll deal with.
Post a Comment