Wayne Rossiter on teaching Darwin’s unquestionable truths
|July 30, 2016||Posted by News under Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, science education|
The claim that British moths “evolved” because of industrial pollution (microevolution) in recent centuries became an unquestionable truth of Darwin lobby textbooks in recent decades. But there are serious problems with that example (the peppered myth). From Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, a note:
Note that I do not deny that there are examples of microevolution in action (in fact, I affirm the existence of such examples). I simply point out that this “prized horse” in the evolutionist’s stable—an example that ranks with Darwin’s finches—has serious shortcomings that go unmentioned in the public or in the classroom. In [Darwin defender] JB’s attempt to rescue the sacred cow, he/she completely misses the major problem. Let’s suppose the arguments JB brings forth are sufficient to re-establish the Peppered moth story as a good example of microevolution.
Note: The peppered myth?:
Character assassination supported by transparently bogus statistics—how does a highly placed scientist end up indulging in such tactics? Obviously, the peppered moth story involves more than objective science.
So, what about those textbook photographs that impressed my college professor friend? If peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, how were the photographs obtained? It turns out that they were staged—often by pinning or gluing dead moths in place. – Jonathan Wells
It still would not negate the point of this section of my book. I’ve been in the academic arena since 1998. I don’t know of one classroom lecture that has ever even mentioned the concerns I raise in my book; concerns significant enough to have Jerry Coyne (professor of biology at Univ. Chicago and an atheist) writing in the journal Nature that it’s as if somebody told a little boy that Santa is a fiction. That is, the warts on this story have not been removed from scientific understanding of the system, but are never mentioned in the classroom. Coyne admits his ignorance of the subject up until that time. He taught something he didn’t even know about. We all have. More.
Darwinism does that to people. We end up retailing unquestionable truths instead of teaching students to research and evaluate.
See also: Darwin’s finches not a good example of Darwinian evolution?
Follow UD News at Twitter!