Birds Eat Dark Moths, Therefore God Does Not Exist

first_img(Visited 34 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Michael Majerus watched birds eat peppered moths from his window for seven years (06/25/2004), then drew his conclusions.  In a presentation to a science conference in Uppsala, Sweden on August 23, he said that the peppered moth story proves evolution, which means there is no supernatural being to save us, there is no second coming, creation is not science, evolution is a fact, and evolution should be taught in the schools or the world will never solve global problems.It is not my place to tell people what to believe.  But I know that we are making a horrendous mess of this planet, and I do not have faith in some supernatural intervention putting it right: No second coming; No helping hand from on high; No last minute redemption….    We need to address global problems now, and to do so with any chance of success, we have to base our decisions on scientific facts: and that includes the fact of Darwinian evolution.  If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught.  It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution. (Emphasis his.)The entire presentation by Dr. Majerus, who runs an evolutionary genetics lab at Cambridge University, is available from his Cambridge website.  The UK newspaper The Independent provided background on the controversy of peppered moth studies and how they have become a battleground between evolutionists and creationists.  The article sided with Majerus, stating that his study “revealed a clear example of Darwinian natural selection in action.”    Jonathan Wells, who had criticized the “peppered myth” in his book Icons of Evolution, had some comments about this on the Discovery Institute website, as did Paul Taylor on Answers in Genesis, Paul Nelson on Uncommon Descent and David Tyler on Access Research Network.     Majerus did not seem to notice that creationists never questioned the idea that populations of dark and light moths shifted in response to predation, or that this was an example of natural selection; they only claimed that this had nothing to do with the origin of the moths or with Darwin’s ideas about common ancestry of all living things.  Taylor, for instance, said, “Natural selection does indeed happen—it can be observed.  Darwinian natural selection (i.e., natural selection, for a Darwinist assuming molecules-to-man evolution), however, would require additional genetic information” which was not provided by any of the peppered moth studies.  The dark and light varieties of moths already existed in the wild, so no new species with new genetic information were observed.  In addition, Kettlewell’s original experiments on peppered moths, which became standard evolutionary stories in high school textbooks, came under fire in the late 1990s by creationists and evolutionists alike (07/05/2002).    In his critique, Jonathan Wells examined the likelihood of sampling bias in Majerus’ technique, and reviewed the slow collapse of what he called the “peppered myth.”  In amusement at the chutzpah of assuming the observations had anything to say about ultimate questions, Wells chuckled, “Surely, Majerus doesn’t think that by watching a few moths in his back yard he has disproved the existence of God.  Nobody could be that irrational, not even a university professor.”Update 09/07/2007: In its “Random Samples” page, Science magazine on Sept. 7 also sided with Majerus against creationists.  Subtitling the entry the “Last Word on Moths,” the short article said, “A Cambridge University professor has completed a 6-year experiment with peppered moths that he says should conclusively rebut creationist claims.”  The article claimed that “creationists have used the tale to attack evolution” based on Kettlewell’s flawed experiments, but did not mention their main objection: that shifting populations of pre-existing peppered moth species have nothing to do with Darwin’s overarching theory of universal common descent.  The article ended with another swipe at creationists: “Will that take any wind out of creationists’ sails?” it asked, then answered with a quote from a peppered moth expert who said, “It’s probably not going to quiet them down.”  This answer, of course, subtly implies that they need to be quieted down – not that evolutionists need to listen to what they are saying.Have you ever seen a more blatant example of non-sequitur and exaggeration?  Birds eat dark moths, therefore evolution is a fact and creationists cause global warming.  Majerus had his conclusions fixed in his Darwin-saturated brain before even starting his seven-year vision quest.  He has now triumphantly laid his sacrifice at Father Charlie’s feet and thinks it will vanquish creationism forever.  This is the best case that a Cambridge-professor Darwinist evangelist could make.  Don’t let the Darwinists quiet you down.  Instead, when they act this weird, laugh hysterically so that the world will ask, “What’s so funny?”last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *