RE: Peppered moths again

Pim van Meurs (
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:15:52 -0800

Art: ALL the evidence points to the fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree
trunks in the wild. Majerus acknowledges this in his 1998 book. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this simple fact seriously
undermines the relevance of Kettlewell's observations. The scientific
method would require, at the very least, that observations be repeated on
moths resting in their natural habitat.

So that's why one should accuse Kettlewell of dishonest behavior ?

Art: And it doesn't even take a scientist to see that photographs of peppered
moths manually positioned on tree trunks do not represent their natural
condition. The continued use of these photographs by textbook-writers
constitutes deliberate misrepresentation, i.e., fraud.

Again, you claim this is deliberate.

Art: This is not an issue of creationism vs evolutionism.

No, it's an issue of accusation which lacks supporting foundation.

Art: I do not claim that the peppered myth validates the former or invalidates the latter. If the
classical story were true it would not threaten creationism anyway, since
it only involves changes within a species.

Nothing should really threaten creationism anyway since it is not based on a scientific premise.

Art: What the peppered myth DOES do, in my opinion, is to demonstrate how a
commitment to Darwinism can seduce otherwise good scientists into ignoring
or even misrepresenting the evidence.

Or how it can lead to creationists making accusations they cannot support ? I thank you for that.