Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. XI


A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture.

For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Peppered Moth to a Flaming Fraud

Creation: Henry Bernard Davis Kettlewell
Henry Bernard Davis Kettlewell

Henry Bernard Davis Kettlewell (24 February 1907 – 1979) was a British geneticist, lepidopterist, and medical doctor, who obtained a research grant ($$$!) to study the British Peppered Moth. His research from three surveys between 1952 and 1972 centered on the “evolution” of the British Peppered Moth and he supported his research with films and photographs.

Reportedly, most of the moths at that time were a light, speckled-gray color. Their light color supposedly allowed them to camouflage themselves among the light colored lichens on trees. Thus, birds had trouble identifying these light-colored moths. A dark (melanic) form of the British Peppered Moth also existed, but this moth was said to be rare, as it stood out on the lichen-covered trees, and was easily seen (and thus eaten) by birds.

With me so far?

Creation: Modern Textbook British Peppered Moth 1
Modern Textbook images of the British Peppered Moth

Modern textbooks (which still use the British Peppered Moth as “proof of evolution” of course) point to industrial pollution as the trigger for an “evolutionary change” in the moths. The fairy tale goes that the factories in England started producing soot and smoke, and the tree lichens died, exposing the dark bark, and thus causing the trees to turn black.

Allegedly, this environmental change caused light-colored moths to become easier to see, while the darker moths remained safely camouflaged.

Thus, in only a scant few generations, the population of light and dark moths had reversed itself—with the black moths greatly outnumbering the white moths.

According to Darwinists, this change in the British Peppered Moth population “proves” that species can “evolve” different characteristics based on environmental changes and that these physical changes then allow them to survive…

…or so the story goes.

To give credit where it’s due, a few staunch Darwinists had trouble swallowing this premise.  For example, L. Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction to the 1971 reprint edition of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and frankly went out of his way to discredit the notion.

“Some experiments are said to demonstrate evolution in action; those on industrial melanism in moths are a well-known example…. The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection or survival of the fittest. But they do not show [Darwinian] evolution in progress. For however the population may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia [Peppered Moths].” L. Harrison Matthews ; excerpt from the introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Darwin, p. xi)

Creation: Modern Textbook British Peppered Moth 2
Modern Textbook Image

Even so, Kettlewell pushed on.  His films of British Peppered Moths found in nature were remarkable!  He and his team of expert researchers just happened to capture rare footage of light British Peppered Moths on dark tree trunks being eaten by birds in broad daylight, for example, while even more rare footage demonstrated that the dark moths were virtually ignored by the ravenous birds.

Some interesting facts about British Peppered Moths:

  • British peppered moths are night flyers
  • They do not naturally perch on trees
  • One 25 year study found only 2 moths perched on trees even when baited (British scientist Cyril Clarke et. al)
  • Another 15 year study never identified moths as landing on trees
  • Their preferred habitat is inside caves or on rocky overhangs

Given this set of known facts, Kettlewell’s fairytale study seems spurious at the outset to anyone with the ability think critically.  After all, none of his assumptions fit the facts, so how solid can his conclusions be?  One last interesting fact about the British Peppered Moth.

  • The films and textbook photos were all faked by Kettlewell and his subordinates

As Carl Wieland, a member of the original Kettlewell team noted, the moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred moths, not moths born in nature. They were refrigerated then fed to the birds after being placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell.  They were so languid after their time in the deep freeze that he once had to warm them up on the hot hood of his car.

Creation: Modern Textbook British Peppered Moth 3
Modern Textbook Image

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks?

Turns out, Kettlewell put the moths into what is known as a killing jar (a jar full of poison) and then glued the dead moths to trees. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured “a lot of fraudulent photographs” (1999, 21[3]:56, emp. in orig.)

So, one day, Kettlewell and his team might take a fresh from the refrigerator white moth and set it on a dark tree. Then they might take a dead and shellacked dark moth and glue it to the dark tree in close proximity.  Lights — camera — action!  They film birds eating light colored frozen moth-sicles and ignoring dead dark moths that still reek of killing jar chemicals (and maybe glue).

Later, they might find a light colored tree covered with lichens and reverse the colors for the next film.


Oh, and VERY scientific.  Very.

Creation: Essential Scientific Tool for Extending a Research Grant
Essential Scientific Tool for Extending a Research Grant

The really interesting thing is that even if Kettlewell’s study had not been entirely fabricated and perpetrated as an enduring hoax that is still referenced in textbooks today, it is not evidence of Darwinian evolution at work.  In fact, there is no such thing as observed evidence of Darwinian evolution.

The result of the Kettlewell study, if found to be true, would simply have been that one variety of the peppered moth had increased in numbers at the expense of another variety of peppered moth. This is not evolution of one species to another species.  In fact this is the exact opposite.

Even if this scientific study had been accurate, all it would have demonstrated was that the DNA for the light colored moths would have been lost to the peppered moth population! This is a backward step and demonstrates a net loss of information.

Actual recent studies have even refuted the findings of the fraudulent study.  A group of researchers glued moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest.  Birds ate more of the dark moths on light trees, as any reasonable person might expect. However, their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light moths after the fact, which is the exact  opposite of the Kettlewell study predictions and conclusions.

Darwinist Jerry A. Coyne once called the peppered moth story “the  prize horse in our stable.” (J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36.)  Obviously, this “prize horse” will never win the Triple Crown, although as hoaxes go, it is another crowning achievement in the Darwinist hall of shame.

The Truth

Be truthful and think critically for a moment.  Just how logical and how scientific is Darwinism?

The creationist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes all share a common ancestor — probably some kind of dog-like critter. This is supported by logic, observation, and science.

The Darwinist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes also have fish, amphibian and reptile ancestors. The Darwinist believes that wolves are the descendants of ancient salamanders who, in turn, are the descendants of some original single-celled asexual critter, which, in turn, is the descendant of rocks and mud.  This position is unsupported by logic, observation, or science. This position is pure  faith.

The Darwinist has faith that human beings are distant cousins of dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes, while sharing the same salamander ancestor that panda bears, elephants, birds and giraffes share. This position is unsupported by logic, observation, or science. This position is pure  faith.

The Darwinist has faith that a magic salamander contained the trillions and trillions of genetic data necessary to give rise to all species of mammals, reptiles, insects, fish, arthropods, and birds on planet earth.

Lacking logic, observation, or scientific evidence, to prove this belief, every few years some Darwinist produces and offers up a pretty fantastic fraud or hoax as “proof.”

The creationist believes that each kind of living thing has a common ancestor of the same kind of living thing.  This is supported by logic, observation, and science.  To prove it, we observe the natural world and simply announce, “ergo sum.”

Which position is really more logical, observable, and scientific?

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Copyright © 2009 - 2024 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.