Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)

From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Tue Oct 14 2003 - 20:28:30 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)"

    I'm still sorta baffled that Wells is used in the Christian community as
    an authority, given his Unification church affiliation. I guess the
    suitably prebiased position with respect to evolution takes priority.
    http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

    JimA
     

    Keith Miller wrote:

    > I guess it was this thread where you asserted that criticisms of
    > the "Icons" were offtrack. What is your take of Jerry Coyne's
    > review written in Nature 1998 where he states:
    >
    > Finally, the results of Kettlewellís behavioural
    > experiments were not replicated in
    > later studies: moths have no tendency to
    > choose matching backgrounds. Majerus
    > finds many other flaws in the work, but they
    > are too numerous to list here. I unearthed
    > additional problems when, embarrassed
    > at having taught the standard Biston story
    > for years, I read Kettlewellís papers for the
    > first time.
    >
    >
    >
    > Wells' critique of the work on evolutionary change in the peppered
    > moth was substantially drawn from the work of Michael Majerus
    > (Melanism: Evolution in Action" by Michael E.N. Majerus: Oxford
    > University Press,1998).
    >
    > Wells quotes the following sentence from Majerus' book: "The findings
    > of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic
    > peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect
    > to most of the story's component parts."
    >
    > However, the next sentence reads: "When details of the genetics,
    > behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the
    > resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater
    > interest, than the simple story that is usually related."
    >
    > Furthermore, a couple sentences later Majerus states: "First, it is
    > important to emphasize that, in my view, the huge wealth of additional
    > data obtained since Kettlewell's initial predation papers (Kettlewell
    > 1955a, 1956), does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from
    > that work. Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria
    > forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different
    > degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the
    > peppered moth."
    >
    > Jerry Coyne in a letter to a newspaper or journal says that Wells also
    > misrepresented him. I have been trying to trace that letter down, but
    > have not yet found it. I will post it when I find it.
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 14 2003 - 20:29:01 EDT