Re: [asa] Kettlewell had design problems

There are several aspects to the whole Peppered Moth question.

1. Allegations of fraud
This centres round the fact that Kettlewell and others took photos of dark
and light moths on dark and light trees and pinned them on. An example is on
p80 of Colin Patterson Evolution 1978. There are two photos of a dark and
light moth on a light tree and the same on a dark tree. Anyone would realise
that it was posed to make the point.

However that has been used to allege fraud. That is totally unreasonable and
is a false accusation yet it is repeated ad nauseam by both YECs and IDs eg
Art Chadwick. Don Calbreath also makes this false accusation. J Wells does
the same.

Majerus discusses this kind of false accusation (go to Majerus pages at
Cambridge and read his articles)

Perhaps some have repeated this charge as they believe it to be true.
However by now the allegations have been shown by Majerus to be utterly
false and thus anyone who persists in using them must be considered a liar.

As most are Christians except Wells they are bring the name of Christ into
disrepute.

2. The soundness of field work of the Moth

Kettlewell did his work in the 50s and it was pioneering work and has
weaknesses which even K accepted by 1973.I have recently read RJ Berry's
summary on the moth in his book Inheritance and Natural History 1978 where
he discusses K's work critically and shows that K's original work was not
the whole story but essentially right. (Berry is a leading light in CIS and
I have discussed the issue with him)

Majerus has worked on the PM since 1964 and his work both affirms , corrects
and improves on Kettlewell and has film evidence that the moths do alight on
trees. He also shows that both Hooper, J. (2002) Of Moths and Men: Intrigue,
Tragedy& the Peppered Moth. Fourth Estate, London, 377 and Wells are totally
inaccurate .

His latest paper makes all this clear
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Darwiniandisciple.doc though it
was an address to the British Humanists - boy have they a rod to beat
Christians with!!!!!

Coyne has now changed his mind and agrees with Majerus.

There is only one possible conclusion and that is that Wells and all those
who make allegations of fraud against Kettlewell are not telling the truth
and refuse to be corrected.

I am sure no Christian could possibly agree that this type of dishonesty is
permissible for a Christian.

It is no wonder so many atheists can comment on YEC and ID attacks on
evolution by saying that they are lying for Jesus.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "James Mahaffy" <mahaffy@dordt.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Kettlewell had design problems

> Let me ask who has read Kettlewell's original papers and can make a
> coherent case that it involved fraud? Then we can perhaps address the
> claimed 'flaws' in his approaches? Is anyone familiar with the
> literature here or are most relying on the creationist representation
> of the peppered moth? Bruce Grant's review however is hardly that
> critical of Kettlewell although he identifies some short comings or
> potential short comings, much of which have been addressed more
> recently by Majerus.
>
> <quote Bruce Grant>Certainly there are other examples of natural
> selection. Our field would be in mighty bad shape if there weren't.
> Industrial melanism in peppered moths remains one of the best
> documented and easiest to understand.
> </quote>
>
> Why not quote Majerus who is the world's foremost expert in these areas.
>
> Even Grant is outraged by Wells
> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/grant-pratt-tribune.html
>
> Grant writes in a letter to the Pratt Tribune dated December 13, 2000
> LETTER: Charges of fraud misleading
>
> <quote>But, should we blame Ms. Rider for her outrage upon learning
> that moths were glued to trees? No. Instead, I blame Dr. Jonathan
> Wells, who wrote the article she cites as her source of information.
> While he has done no work on industrial melanism, he has written
> opinion about the work. To one outside the field, he passes as a
> scholar, complete with Ph.D. Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is
> intellectually dishonest. When I first encountered his attempts at
> journalism, I thought he might be a woefully deficient scholar because
> his critiques about peppered moth research were full of errors, but
> soon it became clear that he was intentionally distorting the
> literature in my field. He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations
> from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of
> context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our
> conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent. Why does he do
> this? Is his goal to correct science through constructive criticism,
> or does he a have a different agenda? He never mentions creationism in
> any form. To be sure, he sticks to the scientific literature, but he
> misrepresents it. Perhaps it might be kinder to suggest that Wells is
> simply incompetent, but I think his errors are by
> intelligent design.</quote>
>
> Wells and ID did a poor job on presenting the story of the peppered
> moth in an accurate manner. And yes, I do have read the original
> research by Kettlewell and the many papers on the topic. It's not that
> I am critical of Wells because of Wells being an ID proponent, it's
> the poor level of argument which causes me to reject both Wells and
> Intelligent Design which at best can be found to quote mine
> evolutionary research since it has nothing fertile to propose itself.
> However, it seems that there is a consistent tendency to misunderstand
> the literature when it comes to ID 'criticisms' of such. And combined
> with the scientific infertility and the theological riskiness, I have
> found few if any redeeming qualities in the mainstream ID arguments.
> It's a science killer, it relies on ignorance at many different levels
> to make its claims, and it is founded on principles which use
> equivocation to further its case (terms like design, complexity and
> information come to mind).
>
> However, what concerns me most is how ID does such a poor job at
> accurately representing the scientific research and Wells' Icons
> seems to have set a standard here.
>
> Given the fact that Kettlewell's experiments are still excellent
> examples of experimental research and despite some objections has
> resisted falsification and even better has been supported by recent
> research by Majerus who addressed some of the objections and concerns,
> it seems hard to argue that one puts too much stock in his experiment.
> But at least we should all agree that ID's complaints seem unfounded
> whether it involves accusations of fraud or even relevance of the
> research or quality of said research.
>
> Read the original research, I attempt to do so especially when it
> comes to refuting the claims made by ID. I have been surprised how
> often the actual research painted quite a different picture. Of course
> I am always open to well reasoned arguments why Kettlewell should be
> accused of fraud or why we should reject his experiments or even why
> we should put 'too much stock in his experiments (yes plural, few
> realize that Kettlewell's argument was based on a series of
> experiments).
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2007 3:11 PM, James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu> wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> You may rightly accuse some of falsely accusing Kettlewell of fraud, but
>> you are equally wrong in putting too much stock in his experiment. Do
>> read a little of background on his work. See
>> http://bsgran.people.wm.edu/melanism.pdf in the peer reviewed journals.
>> There were some strong design flaws and I suspect his pictures should
>> have indicated clearer that they were of pinned moths. His point was to
>> show how they blended in with the bark and that was valid but as I
>> understand they were not labeled as pinned moths on the bark. [however
>> this is not my area and I will not go more into it unless I first read
>> the article and talk to an entomology friend.
>>
>> Unless we actually read the article or look or know something about the
>> professional opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of his work, we end
>> up being critical or defensive of his work because we like or hate ID and
>> some in that camp that have highlighted this as deceptive.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 16 17:32:45 2007