Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)

From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 14 2003 - 17:27:35 EDT

  • Next message: Dawsonzhu@aol.com: "Re: Predictions"

    Here is the letter from Jerry Coyne on Wells' reference to Coyne's
    critique of Pepper Moth studies.

    Keith

    ______________________________________

    <http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html>

    Letter to the Pratt (KS) Tribune from Jerry Coyne: December 06, 2000
    Criticism of moth study no challenge to evolution, according to
    evolutionary biologist:

    I have learned that the Pratt school board, apparently responding to
    creationist pressure, has recently revised its tenth-grade biology
    curriculum to include material that encourages students to question the
    theory of evolution. In reading the standards, I see that one of my
    articles - an article constantly misrepresented by creationists - is
    included as a supplementary reading used to cast doubt on evolution.

    Except for a few creationist dissenters, the community of professional
    biologists has long accepted evolution as an essential theory supported
    by innumerable pieces of evidence. To make students think otherwise is
    as harmful as urging them to question the value of antibiotics because
    there are a few people who believe in spiritual healing.

    My article appended to the Pratt standards is a re-evaluation of a
    classic evolutionary story in which rapid changes in the proportions of
    color forms of peppered moths occurred in only about 100 years. This
    evolutionary change is thought to be a response to air pollution,
    changes in the colors of trees, and increased bird predation. My only
    problem with the peppered-moth story is that I am not certain whether
    scientists have identified the precise agent causing the natural
    selection and evolutionary change. It may well be bird predators, but
    the experiments leave room for doubt.

    Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these
    experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization
    is false. All of us in the peppered moth debate agree that the moth
    story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection. My
    call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly
    characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the
    theory of evolution.

    In reality, the debate over what causes natural selection on moths is
    absolutely normal in our field. It is not uncommon for scientists to
    reexamine previous work and find it incomplete, or even wrong. This is
    the normal self-correcting mechanism of science. Textbook examples may
    be altered as additional data are found. Creationists, on the other
    hand, neither air their disagreements in public or admit that they were
    wrong. This is because their goal is not to achieve scientific truth,
    but to expel evolution from the public schools.

    It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells' book,
    "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is
    really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or
    buttressing a crumbling theory. In reality, evolution and natural
    selection are alive and well, with new supporting evidence arriving
    daily.

    I strongly object to the use of my article by the Pratt school board to
    cast doubt on Darwinism. And I feel sorry for the students who are
    being misled by creationists into doubting one of the most vigorous and
    well-supported theories in biology.

    Jerry A. Coyne
    Professor of Ecology & Evolution
    The University of Chicago

    ________________________________

    Keith B. Miller
    Research Assistant Professor
    Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
    785-532-2250
    http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 14 2003 - 17:27:51 EDT