Intelligent Design

Darwinism all But Useless Among Real Scientists

Spread the love

TPeeler brings this oldie but goody back to our attention:

Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions

 

 

6 Replies to “Darwinism all But Useless Among Real Scientists

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.

    Hehe.

    I think it is safe to tighten up the headline by dropping a few words:

    Darwinism all But Useless

  2. 2
    Virgil Cain says:

    “Evolution” is the great equivocation that leads to confusion. Evolutionists perpetrate the confusion because it suits their needs. If we could just somehow get the public to understand this equivocation then evolutionists would be totally screwed.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    ‘I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.’

    Don’t be mean ! But seriously, ‘absolutely superfluous’ sounds as if it might have been a more accurate description than ‘highly superfluous’, but perhaps it was just a courtesy.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    Darwinism all But Useless Among Real Scientists

    Darwinism is all But Useless. Period.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Amen. this is because its not true. How could a untrue thing be useful for things that must be very true?!
    I would say what biologists think about evolution is worthless also. It only was covered by them in a single class, memorized, then forgot. biologists deal with goo and parts and not the origin, but gone, goo and parts before the present ones.
    its only evolutionary biologists, a small tribe, that have anything to say about evolution and backed up with degrees on the wall.
    We fight very few thinkers in these matters. thats why iD is so threatening. it really is a well armed squad fighting a poorly armed battalion. not a division or army called sCIENTISTS. nope.

    Why would the origins of biology matter to biologists? why??
    Even if evolution was true it would be irrelevant.
    fistory matters but not that much to modern affairs of mankind.
    We don’t learn from history because there is not much to learn for new matters. different things.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Was, not is – he died in 2010.

Leave a Reply