Replies

A list of important online references in regard to the Peppered Moth controversy can be found here. (An old message of mine to one of the fallen.)

Actually I repost here as I need to repair some links (Calvin College Evolution Listserv) that have changed their domain address:

O.K. I have contended that the Peppered Moth has NOT been discredited as an example of evolution in action, and that the claim that the moths do not, or hardly ever, rest on tree trunks is FALSE, that Kettelwells experiments represented good science, and so on. I have collected the following links (in very roughly chronological order) so that you can decide for yourself. Most of these are messages posted in the Calvin College Evolution Listserv. I recommed special attention be paid to the following links:

1) Grant's Review of Majerus' 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action
3) Wells is a principle critic
5) Coyne is the primary source for journalist Matthews (who wrote the article heading this thread)
7-9, 12, 25, 27-28, 32-35, 39, 44-45) Frack's articles criticizing the Peppered Moth's critics, and Wells' responses, are a must read
41) Response to all this from the Telegraph reporter Matthews

Peppered Moth Links

Nice collection of links. You realize, of course, that it is now your burden to trot that stuff out whenever the need presents itself. As for me, the whole issue of fraud on the part of evolution has faded into insignificance in view of the present day behavior of creationists (and their slick ID colleagues):

Intentionally and falsely trying to pass off Pandas as a science book is a far bigger and far more outrageous fraud, and will do more to destroy the ID charlatans at the Discovery Institute, than a whole army of Piltdown Men. I quote from the excellent opinion by Judge Jones:

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.

Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

From now on -- thanks to the geniuses at DI, the discredited fools on the Dover school board, and their dedicated lawyers -- when the creationists raise the phony issue of Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man, or Peppered Moths, or Haeckel's Embryos, none of which amounts to anything anyway, the rational side of the argument has been given the all-time slam-dunk response -- Pandas!

RevMoonDidit placemark

Your link #2 is broken. And why, in 2006, are all your references circa 1999?