Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Alison Motluk's choice use of "disingenuous" characterizes this entire media flap over Kettlewell's work.
What is widely ignored is that the gene-shift population evidence of the moths has been substantiated and the photos of moths on trees serve illustrative purposes only.
The only victim is the simplistic "dark-tree/dark-moth" explanation. As Francis Crick reminded Stephen J. Gould, there is an invidious predilection among evolutionary biologists to compose "Just-So" stories.
The true cause for the established gene-shift is obviously more complex than a single environmental factor with a direct effect allows and yet awaits elucidation. That doesn't mean the factor (or factors) are figmentary, nor that the best tool for finding it/them isn't the application of evolutionary science.
Creationist piffle certainly hasn't shown any merit at shining the light on the as yet shuttered unknown.
-- JJ Brannon
The arguments that Hooper raises in her book (that Kettlewell's data has been fudged or faked) have been raised before, by the creationist Jonathon Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution." However, subsequent research has shown that Kettlewell's data, however he obtained it, was essentially correct. A thorough review and critique of Wells' book (and now, apparently, of Hooper's) can be found at the talk.origins archive, specifically, here.
Included in this review are citations for recent (1999-2000) work with the peppered moth. Work that should have been considered by Judith Hooper, and by the author of this review, Alison Motluk, before she makes the claim that scientific fact isn't.
-- Kelly Garrison
In her review of Judith Hooper's "Of Moths and Men," Alison Motluk criticizes Hooper for failing to explore the deeper questions of how the flaws in Kettlewell's work passed peer review, why his study was accepted as gospel before it was replicated, and why so few people read the original papers before passing the story on. Perhaps Hooper was not willing to face the hostility that answering those questions engenders. When Jonathan Wells suggested in "Icons of Evolution" that the scientific establishment's infatuation with Darwinism was to blame, the true believers attacked him zealously. Maybe the bully's message is being heard: mess with Darwin, and we'll mess with you.
-- Ashby Camp
