Divine Wonders: 7 Mysteries of Moths Unveiled for Christian Readers

More About Moths

In this article, we will explore the fascinating subject of moths from a young-earth creationist perspective. We will discuss the peppered moth and its significance in evolutionary theory. Despite recent claims attempting to restore the reputation of the peppered moth as an evolutionary icon, there are still important factors that cast doubt on its role in demonstrating evolution. By examining the evidence and considering alternative explanations, we can gain a better understanding of the limitations of the peppered moth example and its implications for evolutionary theory.

The Peppered Moth Example

The peppered moth (Biston betularia) is often cited as a classic example of evolution in action. The story goes that after the industrial revolution, pollution darkened England's tree trunks, leading to a shift in the moth population. The darker moths were thought to have an advantage as they were less visible to predators, resulting in natural selection favoring this form known as "industrial melanism."

Questionable Practices

Critics of the peppered moth example have raised valid concerns about the methods and evidence used to support its iconic status. For instance, it is challenging to find moths resting on tree trunks during the day as their preferred hiding place is under leaves. Additionally, it has been discovered that lab-reared moths were released onto tree trunks, potentially skewing the results.

Furthermore, photographs depicting moths resting on tree trunks were found to be staged by pinning or gluing dead moths to the trunks. Even a teaching film showing moths being eaten by birds was not a true representation of a natural situation but rather a staged event. These revelations raise questions about the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented.

Natural Selection vs. Evolution

It is crucial to clarify that natural selection, which involves differential survival or reproduction based on heritable traits, is an observable fact. However, it does not equate to the process of evolution itself, which involves the generation of entirely new genetic information. The peppered moth example, even if valid, would only demonstrate natural selection at work, not the creation of new genetic information.

The Recent Evolutionist Article

A recent article in New Scientist attempts to refute the criticisms made by creationists regarding the peppered moth example. It suggests that creationists have unfairly attacked the entire example based on legitimate scientific debates over specific details. However, the article fails to address the evidence of faked photographs and questionable practices highlighted by creationists.

While the article claims that an exhaustive experiment conducted by biologist Michael Majerus reinstates the peppered moth as a prime example of evolution, it falls short of providing compelling evidence. Majerus's experiment merely demonstrated that birds found it easier to spot darker moths on light surfaces, a rather trivial observation. Furthermore, other evolutionists have pointed out that different animals may have varying preferences for light and dark moths, and the correlation between moth frequencies and pollution levels is not consistent.

Misrepresentation of Creationist Position

It is important to note that creationists do not discredit natural selection. Natural selection is a well-established process that results in the survival of individuals with advantageous traits within a population. However, it does not account for the origin of complex genetic information required for macroevolutionary changes.

Creationists argue that the observed changes in gene frequencies among peppered moths are within the limits of variation already present in the moth population. These changes do not provide evidence for the generation of new genetic information or the transformation of one kind into another.

Biblical Perspective

From a biblical creationist standpoint, changing gene frequencies over time are consistent with a model that includes limited variation within created kinds and the occurrence of mostly information-losing mutations. While natural selection can result in shifts within existing genetic boundaries, it does not support molecules-to-man evolution.

It is worth noting that even prominent evolutionists, such as Pièrre-Paul Grassé and L. Harrison Matthews, have acknowledged the limitations of the peppered moth example. They recognize that the moths remain Biston betularia from beginning to end, and the observed changes in their population do not demonstrate the generation of new genetic information.

Why This Matters

The peppered moth example has been widely presented as strong evidence for evolution. However, upon closer examination, significant concerns arise regarding the methods used and the integrity of the evidence presented. By critically evaluating this example, we can gain a better understanding of the limitations of evolutionary claims and the need for alternative explanations.

Think About It

1. How does the faking of photographs and staging of events in support of the peppered moth example impact its credibility?
2. What is the distinction between natural selection and evolution? Why is it important to differentiate between the two?
3. Consider why creationists raise concerns about the evidence presented for evolution. How can these concerns be addressed from an evolutionary perspective?

4. Reflect on how the peppered moth example fits into a biblical creationist model. How does this model accommodate observed changes in gene frequencies?

5. For a more detailed examination of this topic and access to specific references, please refer to the original article by Carl Wieland titled "More about moths" in Creation magazine (1999) and "The Moth Files" (2002).