Since the essence of Darwin’s great idea remains a cornerstone of modern evolutionary science 150 years after he published his work, it has survived more than the whole of 20th Century science. That’s quite an impressive qualification which probably means that it is your understanding that is at fault rather than the theory. If that is the case you should refrain from bearing false witness and look to improving your understanding.
Again, I’m sorry that I don’t understand what you mean by “bearing false witness”. I offered my opinion about Darwinian theory. We can’t pretend that I am the only person who questions or doubts the claims of Darwinism. I would hope that I am free to agree with other scientists who do not accept Darwinian evolution. Again, I cannot see how they are “bearing false witness” for offering their arguments against this theory. You’re adding some kind of moral element (I think?) to this – again, I don’t understand what you’re saying.
I could quote a scientist who denies that evolution is a cornerstone of biology. I think I should be free to agree with the opinions offered here:
(Quoted from Darwin Strikes Back, Thomas Woodward, (179-181)
Philip Skell, an emeritus professor at Penn State University and member of the National Academy of Science offered this in “The Science” (August 29, 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. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
Skell reports on his informal survey of seventy eminent researchers who explore the biology of the living world. He asked “if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.” He adds, “From my conversations with leading researchers it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.”
A number of scientists wrote letters, arguing that Skell had overlooked aspects of the usefulness of evolutionary theory. Philip
Skell was permitted to respond to his critics:
My essay about Darwinism and modern experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology. Comparative physiology and comparative genomics have certainly been fruitful, but comparative biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory. Before the publication of Origin of Species in 1859, comparative biology focused mainly on morphology because physiology and biochemistry were in their infancy and genomics lay in the future; but the extension of a comparative approach to these subdisciplines depended on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not on evolutionary theory and immersion in historical biology.
One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to discover antibodies, enzymes, and drugs. Like comparative biology, this has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian evolution—it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical breeding. Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop improved strains of crops and livestock. Darwin extrapolated this in an attempt to explain the origin of new species, but he did not invent the process of artificial selection itself.
It is noteworthy that not one of these critics has detailed an example where Darwin’s Grand Paradigm Theory guided researchers to their goals. In fact, most innovations are not guided by grand paradigms but by far more modest, testable hypotheses. Recognizing this, neither medical schools nor pharmaceutical firms maintain divisions of evolutionary science. The fabulous advances in experimental biology over the past century have had a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not on intensive immersion in historical biology and Darwin’s theory, which attempted to historicize the meager documentation.
Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate significantly from that state, they die. It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin’s theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?
