1, 2, 3

"Christianity Today", November 4, 2002

Books & Culture Corner: Of Moths and Men Revisited. A Darwinian debate.
By Kevin Padian and Alan Gishlick | posted
11/4/2002

In the September/October issue of Books & Culture, Jonathan Wells reviewed Judith Hooper's
book, Of Moths and Men, a critical account of the notorious peppered moth experiments. Two
scientists whose work was criticized by Wells respond in a letter below.

In his review of journalist Judith Hooper's book Of Moths and Men in Books & Culture ["The
Peppered Myth," September-October 2002], Jonathan Wells made several incorrect and misleading
statements about both the science behind Hooper's book and (for no apparent reason) our review
of his book, Icons of Evolution. We write to correct these misrepresentations.

In the first place, our review of his book (Quarterly Review of Biology, March 2002) was written
by both of us, not just Padian. In it, Wells claims, we implied that he was a sociopath by
comparing him to the main character in the film The Talented Mr. Ripley. We did no such thing.
Rather, we compared the similar use of a rhetorical device in both works, as our original passage
shows:

When we first meet the protagonist of the film The Talented Mr. Ripley, he is playing
piano at a rooftop party in New York City. As the song finishes, an older man
approaches and, observing Ripley's Princeton blazer, remarks that Ripley must have
been at school with his son, Dickie. Sensing an opportunity, Ripley does not mention
that the blazer is borrowed from another guest, nor that he did not attend Princeton,
but only worked there. He merely asks, "How is Dickie?"

This kind of distortion, misleading by the omission of important information, is the
basis of Icons of Evolution.…

We supported our comparison with copious examples. And we made no further reference to
scenes in the film.

Wells characterizes Ripley as a sociopath, but those are his words and interpretations, not ours. 
Inasmuch as Wells has taken license as a film critic, we might add a dissenting view: to us,
Ripley is merely an opportunist whose spiraling lies and envy trap him into increasingly desperate
acts. Wells is likening himself to a sociopath.  That's his privilege, but he is putting his words in
other people's mouths. 

The book that Wells was reviewing has been roundly criticized by specialists in the field—for
example, Jerry Coyne in Nature (July 4, 2002) and Bruce Grant in Science (August 9, 2002). The
well-worn example of the peppered moth is far too complex for most textbooks to cover in a
limited space. Yet virtually all textbooks recognize that it is an example of natural selection in
action, even if the relative importance and the targets of the selective forces remain under
study. Wells accuses us of making "astonishing claims" that contradict the scientific literature. 
On the contrary, our analysis was based directly on the scientific literature that Wells cites. We
did not make up the numbers, and we did not resort to "bogus statistics." Naturally, given his
prejudice, Wells would put a different spin on the complexity of the problem. But he cannot
explain the repeatedly confirmed scientific results in any other way but natural selection.

Wells likes to imply that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists protecting some alleged myth
about the importance of selection in the case of the peppered moth. He does not tell his
audience that the scientific literature has analyzed the relative importance of ecological
mechanisms for decades precisely because the "myth" is not protected by any such conspiracy. 
He also persists in characterizing standard field experiments (such as fixing moths to tree trunks
to test for selective effects of predation) as if they are acts of fraud. It is little wonder that
Wells's book has received such poor reviews from practicing scientists. He might have informed
readers of his confessed religious mission against evolution before presenting his remarks as if
they were of a dispassionate scientist. 

Kevin Padian

Alan Gishlick

National Center for Science Education

Berkeley, Calif.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information. 
Oryginal: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/143/11.0.html

POWRÓT