Talk:Natural selection and the peppered moth

Cut from lead paragraph:

The scientific community remains skeptical of their claims.

This sentence seems designed to make Wikipedia endorse the view that the Creationists are wrongly criticizing the "peppered moth story". In other words, SCIENCE defends itself from the false attacks of religion.

For this sentence to remain, there should be something in the article explaining that an overwhelming majority of scientists (or better, a consensus) remains skeptical and explaining why the scientists reject the criticisms of the creationists.

Failing that, I think Wikipedians on all sides can agree with the following formulation:

• Evolutionists remain skeptical of their claims.

(It is well known that 95% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution

We should mention the J. Wells quote, about the "staged" photographs.

• "All the peppered-moth pictures were staged," said biologist Jonathan Wells ... "Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks." [1]

Any objections? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Arguments

Cut from text:

Most evolutionists concede this point, agreeing that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. Instead, educators use it as an easily understood example of natural selection.

This looks like a rebuttal of a point. It should be attribute to a specific author. Otherwise, it looks like Wikipedia is endorsing it as an example of natural selection.

The article is about whether or not the peppered moth provides such an example. Saying that it does begs the question and sides with evolutionists. Uncle Ed 11:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)