Quote: Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

"Why Do We Invoke Darwin?" asks Philip S. Skell in a paper on "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology" in The Scientist, vol. 19, p10, 29 August 2005
"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."

Read more in The Scientist

Evidence News 11 July 2007