From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:33:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>
     philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:

}An excellent example is the standard Darwinist delusion that the
}peppered moth example illustrates "evolution" in any non-trivial
}sense.  That this unremarkable instance of population shifts has
}anything to do with the great creative process that produced
}moths and trees and scientific observers in the first place is so
}absurd to any unprejudiced mind that my lecture audiences
}consistently laugh when I explain it to them.  

If your explanation is anything at all like the "explanation" you gave
of Stephen Hawking's work when you presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Society for Neuroscience last October, then I'm not surprised.
Perhaps the laughter is not evidence that the ideas that you're
paraphrasing are silly, but is instead an indication that *your*
version is humorous.

}"Students should understand that this is not an example of
}evolutionary change from light to dark to light moths, because 
}both kinds were already in the population.  It is an example of 
}natural selection, but in two senses.  First, temporary
}conditions in the environment encouraged selection against dark
}moths and then against light moths.  But, second, and just as
}important, is the selection to maintain a balance of both black
}and white forms, which are adaptable to a variety of
}environmental circumstances.  This balanced selection increases
}the chances for survival of the species.  This is in many ways
}the most interesting feature of the evolution of the peppered
}moth, but it is often misrepresented in textbooks."  [P. 103]
}
}That frequent misrepresentation occurred, of course, because 
}cyclical variation within a fundamentally stable and unchanging
}situation is not what Darwinists need to show.  

I suspect, rather, that the misrepresentation occurred because the
authors of textbooks are often confused.  I once looked through about
10 different potential textbooks trying to find one that would be
appropriate for an introductory neurobiology class.  I was *extremely*
disappointed with what I found, because with only one or two
exceptions I found obvious mistakes in all of them even during cursory
examinations.  I wouldn't be too surprised to find that general
biology texts suffer from the same shortcomings.

}I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
}is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
}have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
}based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
}indoctrination if you wish to be.

You've convinced me.  You've convinced me that Chris' appraisal from
one of your recent tomes was correct.  You're message isn't so much
offensive as it is inane.  We can't explain everything.  So what?  Do
you have any hypotheses for us to entertain that do a better job of
explaining the evidence which most of us consider supportive of
evolution? 

}Phillip E. Johnson
}  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)