Re: Peppered Moths again

Kevin O'Brien (
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:53:51 -0700

>At 11:11 AM 3/31/99 -0800, Art wrote:
>>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
>>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.
>Well said Art. Regardless of alleged sins of creationists, Wells
>has made a serious allegation which needs to be addressed. If
>fraud has been committed it needs to be exposed and admitted to
>openly. If some creationists don't do likewise, so what?

The seriousness of Wells' allegation must be determined by asking whether
Wells even knows what he is talking about. Wells is not an expert on the
peppered moth though he tries to claim that he is more qualified than
Majerus to properly evaluate this subject, he clearly denies even the most
basic concepts of evolution, he ignores or does not know about research that
has verified Kettlewell's results, he does not understand how to perform
field research, and he deliberately misrepresents Kettlewell's motives and
experimental technique while offering no evidence to support his claims. In
fact, Wells has so damaged his credibility that it is extremely difficult to
believe anything he has to say, no matter how compelling.

Kevin L. O'Brien