Secular liberalism is a religion and
evolution (or Darwinism) is just one of its articles
of blind faith
The Peppered Moth fraud shows just how
far some of Charles Darwin devotees are prepared to go
to defend the creation myth of their religion
Essay by Graham Moorhouse
(with alnowledgement to Ann Coulter)
If
you really wanted hard evidence for evolution, the smoking
gun was, according to the devotees of the secular liberal
faith, the peppered moth. When industrial pollution
in the middle of the nineteenth century started to turn
the trunks of trees black, the peppered moth of Darwinic
folk legend, once pale, started to turn black, the better
to avoid predators, or so it was hypothesized by Darwinic
arch-druids. As evidence for evolution goes it
wasn’t quite earth worms turning into elephants,
but at least it was something. It had “evolved” (or
at least changed a little bit) exactly as Darwin had
predicted.
It wasn’t quite the stuff to
set the heart racing; they were still peppered moths. The
secular miracle of natural selection had nevertheless
produced a minor variation within the species. A
destitute man can get excited over a few coppers and
up to that point the Darwiniacs had been pretty skint
for hard evidence. Here at last they had a grey
moth that had morphed in front of their very eyes into
a radically new life form - a slightly darker grey moth. The
secular liberals ecstatically announced that “real
science” had proved evolution true yet again and
went back to their favourite pastime of calling infidels
religious nutters.
One of my grandchildren also goes noticeably
darker every summer and one of my daughters-in-law regularly
goes from fat to skinny and back again. Not exactly
the sort of metamorphosis that could turn a midge into
a moose, nevertheless, perhaps I could make a bob or
two selling the story of my grandson’s amazing
ability to change his colour with the seasons to the New
Scientist.
In the fifties an Oxford biologist,
E.B. Ford, had spent two happy years transporting dark
grey moths from the inner city to the countryside and
light grey moths from the countryside to the inner city. After
which Ford triumphantly announced that his research had
proved that birds could easily spot the dark grey moth
on light trees and light grey moths on dark trees. Voilà -
evolution had been proved yet again!
Over the next fifty years the peppered
moth’s legend became sacred to Darwinics - a sort
of Fatima for atheists. It became the snow covered
peak of that “mountain of evidence” that
science journals keep telling us about. Every school
child in the west, before learning how to put a condom
on a cucumber, was staring at pictures of a light peppered
moth clearly visible on a black tree trunk next to a
dark moth that was somewhat less visible.
It was all so reasonable … and
yet all so phony. Some decades later some researchers
(who one must presume had been living on another planet
and were thus unaware that questioning evolution was
a capital offense on planet earth) raised a few trivial
issues. Ted Sargent, an American lepidopterist
(the branch of zoology dealing with butterflies and moths)
then risked life-long incarceration by bravely pointing
out that peppered moths don’t actually alight on
tree trunks! Further, they are nocturnal and fly
around at night when birds, apart from owls, are having
their forty winks.
It transpired that Ford had rigged
his experiments by physically placing moths on tree trunks,
somewhere the little critter would never have alighted
had they been left to their own devices. It that
wasn’t bad enough, it also become apparent that
the famous photos of peppered moths, which regularly
show up in Darwinic propaganda even to this day, had
been staged: dead moths had been literally stuck to
tree trunks! The “proof” for evolution
had suddenly morphed into a sort of Monty Python dead-parrot
sketch. This experiment had been the equivalent
of tying the legs of a mouse together and throwing it
to a hungry cat, and then exclaiming, “See - this
confirms mice evolved legs to escape predators - evolution
is proved yet again!”
In her book, Godless:
The Church of Liberalism,
Ann Coulter amusingly quipped to the effect that
this exposé brought to an abrupt end the
secular liberals one and only recorded love-affair
with air pollution.
And how did the Darwinacs respond to
this exposure? - you know the ones who keep telling us
they are devoted to the scientific method. Well,
to be fair, a couple had the integrity to publicly admit
that the game was up, but the rest set about the science
of demonising Sargent and ruining his career - Sargent
was the zoologist who had played a central part in exposing
the fraud.
Others devotees just ploughed on regardless,
hoping no one had noticed that their “statue of
the Weeping Virgin” wasn’t kosher. The New
Scientist as recently as 9th July 2005 confidently
stated, “Evolutionary biologists have long known
that the process can happen rapidly - Charles Darwin
himself pointed out the observable changes wrought by
pigeon fanciers and dog breeders. A century later
biologists showed that peppered moths in England’s
industrial heartland had evolved darker colours to camouflage
themselves against soot-blackened trees.” It
came as a surprise to many that selective breeding by
humans had belonged in the “blind chance mutations
of nature” column all along.
In 2005 - three years after it had
finally acknowledged that the peppered moths were a fraud
- the New York Times carried an article by a biologist,
Professor H. Allen Orr, treating the peppered moth scam
as an open question “Did the peppered moths evolve
dark colour as a defence against birds or for other reasons? And
what role, if any, did the empty cans of superglue and
black spray paint found at the scene play in the moth’s
evolution.” Okay - I made up the last sentence.
Orr concluded by called the darkening
of the moths a “minor squabble” among biologists
that had been inflated by sceptics of evolution. It
was as if the Church was to describe the Galileo affair
as a storm in a teacup triggered by a “fanatical
pro-elliptical orbist”! Peppered moths
fly are night (when birds are having a kip) and don’t
alight on tree trunks - aren’t these what old-school
scientists used to call facts?
Is there anything funnier than secular
liberals? - they engineer comical frauds in defence of
their religious dogmas and then accuse sceptics of being
driven by religious zeal, and then constantly talk as
if you are an idiot for being just a tad uncertain that
your great-grandfather was a frog!