Re: Peppered Moths again

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:11:23 -0800

For those who may care, the citations below constitute what is referred to
in logic as "ad hominem" defense, and it is usually resorted to by those
who can make no other response. For your information, Jonathan Well has
explored the issue in great detail and has submitted an article on the
subject to a major scientific journal. Those who wish to defend the status
quo on the peppered moth on this list ought to be doing what they
ignorantly accuse Jonathan of not doing, that is , investigating the
subject for themselves rather than resorting to arguments from authority
and ad hominem attacks.

>At 09:06 AM 3/31/99 -0700, Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>> When scientists believe their religious views so strongly that they reject
>> the expertise of their colleagues as being biased dogmatism and feel that
>> they can more objectively evaluate a subject they have no research
>> experience in or practical knowledge of, I believe they have abandoned
>> scientific principles and thus should be treated like any other ignorant
>> creationist. In fact worse, because they know they are ignorant but choose
>> to believe their ignorance is stronger than their opponents' knowledge.
> Amen.
> This type of attitude is, unfortunately, all too common on this list.
>- Steve.
> Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology

>From: Pim van Meurs <>To: "'Arthur V. Chadwick'"
> ""
> <>
>Subject: RE: Peppered Moths again
>Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:50:30 -0800
>Jonathan: Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is.
>I just love the accusations. Do creationists have such a low esteem of
their own work that all they >can do is call "fraud" ?