576 CHAPTER 22morphological and molecular levels, that are very
unlikely to have any function.- The classic examples of evolution are false.
Some creationists have charged that some of the best-
known studies of evolution are flawed and that evolu-
tionary biologists have dishonestly perpetuated these
supposed falsehoods. For example, H. B. D. Kettlewell,
who performed the classic study of industrial mela-
nism in the peppered moth, was accused of having
obtained spurious evidence for natural selection by
predatory birds because he pinned moths to unnatu-
ral resting sites (tree trunks). Later research tested and
strongly validated Kettlewell's conclusions—an exam-
ple of the classic tradition of the scientific method. But
suppose that Kettlewell's study had been flawed. First,
it does not follow that textbook authors and other cur-
rent biologists have deliberately perpetuated false-
hood; they simply might have relied on earlier sources,
since no textbook author can check every study in
depth. Second, whether or not Kettlewell’s work was
flawed is irrelevant to the validity of the basic claims
involved. Both natural selection and rapid evolution-
ary changes have been demonstrated in so many spe-
cies that these principles would stand firmly even if the
peppered moth story were completely false. - Disagreements among evolutionary biologists show
that Darwin was wrong.
Disagreements among scientists exist in every field of
inquiry and are, in fact, the fuel of scientific progress.
They stimulate research and are thus a sign of vitality.
There are plenty of unresolved, debated questions
about evolution, but they do not at all undermine the
strength of the evidence for the historical fact of evo-
lution—that is, descent, with modification, from com-
mon ancestors. On this point, there is no disagreement
among evolutionary biologists. - There are no fossil intermediates between humans and
other apes; australopithecines were merely apes. And
there exists an unbridgeable gap between humans and
all other animals in cognitive abilities.
This is a claim about one specific detail in evolutionary
history, but it is the issue about which creationists care
most. This claim is simply false. See Chapter 21 for evi-
dence of stages in morphological evolution revealed
by fossil hominids; DNA sequence similarities among
modern humans, Neanderthals, and African apes;
and evidence that although the cognitive abilities of
humans are indeed developed to a far greater degree
than those of other species, many of our mental facul-
ties seem to be present in more rudimentary form in
other primates and mammals.- As a matter of fairness, alternative theories, such as su-
pernatural creation and intelligent design, should be
taught, so that students can make their own decisions.
This train of thought, if followed to its logical conclu-
sion, would have teachers presenting hundreds of dif-
ferent creation myths, in fairness to the peoples who
hold them, and it would compel teachers to enter-
tain supernatural explanations of everything in earth
science, astronomy, chemistry, and physics, because
anything explained by these sciences, too, could be
argued to have a supernatural cause. It would imply
teaching students that to do a proper job of investi-
gating an airplane crash, federal agencies should con-
sider the possibility of mechanical failure, a terrorist
bomb, a missile impact—and supernatural intervention
[4]. Science teachers should be expected to teach the
content of current science—which means the hypoth-
eses that have been strongly supported and the ideas
that are subjects of ongoing research. That is, they
should teach what scientists do. Several scientists have
searched the scientific literature for research reports
on intelligent design and “creation science” and have
found no such reports. Nor is there any evidence that
“creation scientists” have carried out scientific research
that a biased community of scientists has refused to
publish. That means that the subject should not be
taught in a science course.
BOX 22A
Refuting Antievolutionary Arguments (continued)
22_EVOL4E_CH22.indd 576 3/22/17 1:49 PM