Dear Dr. Mertz,
> When I typed "peppered moths" into Google, up popped a
> listing of pages claiming to expose the famed study as
> faulty science. ... To the many people who are still
> forming opinions about the topics, however, the sheer
> number of these web pages ... may lead them to the wrong
> conclusion. ... Perhaps we need to use the same tactics to
> ensure that the scientifically accurate story is told.
Iâm sorry, but I donât share your concern. Entering the same keywords
as you, Google presented 10 websites on the first page. As most people only
look at the first page, these are the sites with which I concerned myself. The
links are presented below in the order in which Google presented them. Five
(#s 1, 2, 7, 8, 9) are pro-evolution. Four (#s 3, 5, 6, 10) are creationist
(note that two are by Wells, and are different versions of the same material, a
âscientistâ and âlayâ form). One (# 4) is neutral.
Given these results, I do not believe that stooping to bombardment is
appropriate (I wouldnât anyway, as I feel we should remain honest).
Take care, Tom
1 http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
2 http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon6moths.html
3 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
5 http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp
6 http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm
7 http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/moonshine.htm
8 http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a.htm
9 http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage07.html
10 http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
