Creationism and the peppered moth
|
|
The use of the peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked both by creationists and advocates of intelligent design.
Traditionally creationists have pointed out that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution rather than the important macroevolutionary trend of speciation (e.g. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985). Most evolutionists concede this point, agreeing that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. Instead, educators use it as an easily understood example of natural selection.
From 1998 onwards however, even the authenticity of the example came under fire. A review by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of Mike Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action was published in Nature (Coyne 1998; Majerus 1998). It famously included the following:
- [Coyne compared his reaction to] "the dismay attending my discovery, at age 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve."
- "For the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action"
Coyne compares Majerus' book to the highly critical paper by Sargent et al (1998), and it has been criticised by many such as Don Frack and Majerus himself for not reflecting Majerus' book. Coyne, who has spoken out against creationism later claimed that he is misquoted by creationists.
The review was subsequently picked up by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Matthews, to who wrote:
- "Evolution experts are quietly admitting that one of their most cherished examples of Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders. Experiments using the moth in the Fifties and long believed to prove the truth of natural selection are now thought to be worthless, having been designed to come up with the 'right' answer."
Majerus claims Matthews hadn't read his book Melanism: Evolution in Action, and that Majerus had tried to explain the principles of the story to him in a 30 minute telephone conversation. Majerus alleges that the report contains misquotations of him, and the report includes several factual errors.
Subsequently, Biologist and supporter of Intelligent Design, and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Jonathan Wells wrote an essay on the subject (2001), a shortened version of which appeared in The Scientist (Wells, 1999). He followed this up with a controversial book entitled Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we Teach About Evolution is Wrong (Wells, 2000). Cook, Grant and Majerus have all claimed that Wells' writings on the subject are deliberately dishonest.
In 2002 Hooper's Of Moths and Men was published, which suggested that Bernard Kettlewell had committed scientific fraud. This received scathing criticism in book reviews in scientific journals (e.g. Coyne 2002;, B.C. Clarke Grant). Although it claims not to be a creationist book, advocates of Intelligent Design also claim not to be creationists, though this is contended by some in the scientific community. Of Moths and Men received good reviews from the creationist movement and the popular press.
| Ecology | Genetics | Evolution | Taxonomy | Predation experiments |
| Researchers: Bernard Kettlewell (The Evolution of Melanism) | Mike Majerus (Melanism: Evolution in Action) | Laurence Cook | Cyril Clarke | Bruce Grant | E.B. Ford | Philip Sheppard J.W. Tutt |
| Alternative theories: Craig Millar | Ted Sargent |
| Creationism: Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution) | Judith Hooper (Of Moths and Men) |
| References |