From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 21:26:56 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
To: <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)
> Sarah-
>
> are you willing to take the time to read it?
>
> I've read enough to get the general idea. If I have time I might get back
> to the resources you cited.
Let me ask this a different way, have you read
what *peppered moth researchers* have to say
about the peppered moth as an example of
natural selection? As between Wells, Coyne,
Sargent (whose views are promoted in Judith
Hooper's book, and are also cited by Wells
in the most recent Icons analysis, here in Texas),
and the peppered moth researchers who have
commented on the subject, guess who I put the
most credence in. Keith mentions Coyne's
backpedal. You are correct that it's certainly not
a repudiation of his views as expressed in Nature.
However, here's what's lost in any any analysis of
the situation is this - what makes him an authority
on peppered moths? Why is he "in the peppered
moth debate", as he puts it. Because he wrote
a book review in Nature and read maybe 10 out
of several hundred papers on the subject and
Majerus' book. That's ridiculous! I'm sorry, that's
all I can say without this turning into a tirade. Please
read some of the responses of the *peppered moth
researchers* to Coyne, Hooper, and Wells & ask
me again if you still feel like discussing it. I truly
recommend that you consult the archives and read
the messages sent to this list on the subject of
the peppered moth in 03/99 & 04/99.
> But when Wells cites and uses this [Coyne's review], he's
> misrepresentative and wrong because moths are so proven. I don't get it.
I agree with this. Coyne should have admitted
he was wrong rather than claiming he had been
misrepresented.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/09/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 21:20:07 EDT