When being right proves you are wrong

Evolution deniers seize on all possible arguments against evolution, even if they are mutually exclusive or contradict their own views, demonstrating their lack of understanding of the scientific process.

One place we see this is attacking the peppered moth as an example of evolution. It was a centerpiece of Jonathan Wells’ Icons of evolution, and many others have attacked it as well. The specific charges have been well answered elsewhere. But what is fascinating is the complete irrelevance of the attack. I have yet to hear of an evolution denier that denies “microevolution”. Every one of them admits it happens. They have to because the evidence is so strong. They depend on it as a refuge, so that they can dismiss many great examples of evolution as “just microevolution.” YECs depend on microevolution to diversify a few surviving “kinds” of the ark into the diversity we see today. Jonathan Wells believes in microevolution. The peppered moths are an example of microevolution. So what exactly is the point of attacking it, as if it is an attack on evolution?

Let’s just say that every single charge Wells levels against the peppered moths is correct. What would be the significance? Nothing at all, to evolutionists or creationists. There are well over 2,000 documented examples of selection in nature, and if we found out one of them was wrong, it would have no effect on the overall evidence. It wouldn’t be the first observation not to hold up. And if Wells proved the peppered moth was wrong, he and all creationists would still believe in microevolution, and still use it as a refuge. Since they concede the point, why are they arguing over it?

Of course, scientists are the ones who first pointed out a few problems with the original peppered moth experiments—controls that could have been done, problems with some catch and release experiments, etc. That’s what scientists do, they criticize and demand high standards of evidence. If that is all Wells was doing, it would be no problem, although he is a few decades late. None of the scientific critics of the work thought their criticism discredited the case for evolution, however. By some strange logic, creationists do.

The logic seems to be that if scientists are wrong about anything, then somehow that proves the whole enterprise is wrong. Even if scientists are wrong about something that creationists admit we are right about, it still proves it is wrong (read it a few times, it makes sense). Their approach to science is to flail about and attack blindly everywhere and if anything sticks in any way, they believe they have made a point against the theory. They have no comprehension of working within a theoretical framework, of the accumulation of evidence, of consistency of results. They don’t understand that experiments are wrong all the time, and that is a strength of science (after all, these are the same people that think that since the Bible hasn’t changed in thousands of years, that is a strength). They have the amazing ability to think disproving their own belief in microevolution is a victory. The easiest way to respond to an attack on the peppered moth or similar experiments is to say “so what?” and wait for them to fall back on microevolution.