>>For someone to take these examples and reject science as
>>a lie demonstrates to me that they desire science to be
>>a lie no matter what.
Please be accurate in your representations of my position. I did not say science was a lie, merely that there were some who were willing to subvert science in their support of it. (Lying, as far as I am aware is not part of the scientific method) These people are not the mainstream, and the honest seekers after truth (which is how I view most scientists) are maligned by the fact that these charlatans hoodwinked (some of) us, and thus sullied Science’s image. However since these unscrupulous individuals exist, it is prudent to be cautious in believing uncorroborated evidence.
As for the peppered moth, to offer an image which is visual “Proof” of your theory without informing those who will be seeing your evidence without informing them that it is a staged photo for illustration only is dishonest by every definition that I have ever heard. What makes this worse is there was actually merit to the research and the photographs actually wound up detracting from the impact of the study. (I will assert that Evolution within a species happens regularly both in nature, and in the lab. It’s measurable, repeatable, and predictable. This Micro evolution does not prove Evolution between species (Macro evolution), but it certainly begs the question)
To assert that there are no falsehoods that have been told in science is to be intellectually dishonest.
To assert that I have declared Science to be a lie is likewise, dishonest.
P.S. It is customary when discussing someone, or their comments, to ping them to your post.
Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?