What is the status of evolutionary theory from the perspective of a cell biologist? Is dissent of evolutionary theory allowed? Has Behe been debunked? Is evolution a theory in crisis?
I have my opinion, certainly. But what about a professional? Perhaps someone like a cell biologist who holds a PhD in biochemistry from a Big Ten school, who teaches cell biology for a living, and who has been published in scientific journals.
I found someone with all of those credentials and set up an interview. Here are my notes from that discussion.
Me: "Thanks for speaking with me."
Prof: "I am happy to do so."
Me: "So, is there any debate within the scientific community about evolutionary theory?"
Prof: "Debate? No. Anyone who questions it is labeled a 'crack pot'. There is no quicker way to get your comrades up in arms than to question evolution."
Me: "Is it fair to say it would be career suicide to dissent against evolution?"
Prof: "That would probably be true."
Me: "Is there a whisper campaign going on, kind of a like a secret society of dissenters?"
Prof: "No. Evolutionary theory is taught as truth and never discussed. I have never had one private conversation with a colleague about evolution. Seriously. No one talks about it."
Me: "Would dissenting against evolution be the same as dissenting against string theory?"
Prof: "No. It is okay to dissent against string theory. People can laugh at string theory and it is not a big deal. The same is true with chaos theory. It is okay to say 'I am not on board with it.' That could not happen with evolution, in my opinion."
Me: "Are you one of the 400 scientists who have put their name on a public list dissenting against Darwin?"
(note: I am referring to the document known as “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” which includes 70 biologists)
Prof: "What list? I bet 95 percent of those are tenured professors." (note: the light bulb turned on for me at that point. That magic word: tenure).
Me: "Is evolution practical in any way to your research?"
Prof: "Your average scientist just uses the word evolution. It is not part of the investing process. Here is the bottom line. Three words. Observable. Reproducible. Testable.
Me: "I have been told that a discovery of a Precambrian rabbit would debunk descent with modification. Is that true?"
Prof: "That is a hard one. I honestly don't know."
Me: "Are you familiar with Michael Behe's book?"
Prof: "Yes. I read it when it came out. That is when the light turned on for me. It answered questions I had about how metabolism arrives. Take proteins for example. Proteins must be perfectly folded in three dimensions to work. We are told that numerous, small, successive gradual pathways account for this. The problem is, there is no half on, half off. It either works or it does not. There is no halfway point for hemoglobin. Just look at sickle cell anemia."
(note: my undergraduate degree was in computer science, and the most of my career has been spent in information systems. Understanding systems helps me understand Behe's argument against gradualism in building irreducibly complex systems. For someone who engineers systems for a living, like yours truly, this argument is very intuitive.)
Me: "I am told that Behe has been debunked. Is that true?"
Prof: "Behe is a lightning rod and has received a lot of criticism, that is true."
Me: "I understand he has critics, but has he been debunked?"
Prof: "I have not seen anyone provide pathways to account for cellular machinery."
Me: "Ever heard of Kenneth Miller?"
Prof: "No."
(note: I was hoping to discuss Kenneth Miller's alleged debunking of Behe's mousetrap analogy).
Me: "Ok. In your opinion, can design be taught in the classroom?"
Prof: "Yes, perhaps under the guise of liberal studies; like a senior seminar on the origins of life. Students could research, develop and defend position papers."
Me: "Cool idea. I realize you need to get to your lab. Any last thoughts?"
Prof: "I was taught that evolutionary theory could withstand any challenge. If that is true, then I say bring on all challengers."
Me: "I could not agree with you more. Thank you for your time."
Prof: "No problem. Anytime."
Epilogue:
Evolutionary theory has its quiet doubters on the inside, especially among those who stare at posters of cellular systems and molecular machinery every day.
So if some cell biologists doubt the theory, why don't we hear more from those doubters?
In my opinion, two reasons stand out.
One, evolutionary theory is simply not relevant to the day-to-day workings in cell biology. Like the professor said, the focus is on what's observable, testable, reproducible. That is what they really care about. The essay by Roland Hirsch really bears this point out. Hirsch says, "Indeed some of the major discoveries in the life sciences presented in this article were hardly anticipated by evolutionary theory, but instead came out of advances in experimental technologies." The latter half of the 20th century, in life sciences, has been a tool-driven revolution more so than a concept-driven one. This tool-driven, pragmatic climate makes discussions about evolution largely irrelevant and unnecessary – except maybe in a political context.
Two, as the professor confirmed, it would be suicidal from a career perspective. I do not fault doubters for remaining silent. There is little to gain at this point, and everything to lose. Unless you plan on a career change, I am not sure what would compel you to speak out and publicly express your skepticism about biology's most cherished and aggressively defended theory.
Here is my opinion on how things could change. The change to a design-oriented paradigm on the inside (i.e. among scientists) must come from outside biology. I think the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, cosmology) hold the most promise for a re-fitting of paradigms from unguided processes toward design. They are ripe for change. The evidence of fine tuning in the cosmos and laws of physics strengthens every week. They are accustomed to big paradigm shifts. Just witness the Copernican shift from a static, infinite universe to Big Bang cosmology in one short century. For biology, the change will be slower. When it comes, in my opinion, it will start in molecular biology first and then spread outward. The speed at which this paradigm shift occurs depends on one key element. Results.
Good, old-fashioned pragmatism. If functioning under the rubric of design produces faster, scientific breakthroughs, from discoveries to cures, then I think we will see a faster adoption of design as a metascience. If not, then we will be left to slug out a debate about concepts in a tool-driven, results oriented world. (note: the question is, who will step up to create a research program that will permit research to flourish using a design framework?)
The paradigm shift will also require endorsements from gatekeepers; those world-class scientists who already have the respect of the scientific community and don't need to build up academic capital. Perhaps it will start with those who already have the protection of tenure – I don't really know.
What role will worldviews play? A huge one. Most Christian's think that naturalism is what keeps evolution alive. Naturalism (as a worldview), however, is on the way out, in my opinion. As Hugh Ross boldly predicts, naturalism is dying of natural causes. As James Herrick points out, in his book The Making of the New Spirituality, the void is being filled by what Herrick terms the New Religious Synthesis (basically religious syncretism). Herrick demonstrates how critical evolutionary theory is to many neo-religious thinkers. So, whether Ross and Herrick are right or wrong, worldviews will continue to play a vital role in keeping evolutionary thinking entrenched.
Recent Comments