Is the Darwinian Paradigm Necessary for Progress in Experimental Biology?

Dr. Phil Skell, former AITSE-member (now deceased), chemist, Professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University and former member of the National Academy of Sciences says “no!” But then he is well-known for his controversial opinion that the historical sciences contribute nothing to experimental biology, in direct opposition to a statement by Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

According to Dr. Skell in his article in Politics and the Life Sciences 27(2):47, “It is our knowledge of how organisms actually operate–not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago–that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers, and other practitioners of science today.” He, quite rightly, points out that biohistory and fossil records have very little to contribute to, say, the design of a new antibiotic or advances in the understanding of how tumors are vascularized.

Of course, the usefulness of evolutionary theory in providing a base for empirical research depends on which definition of the term “evolution” one subscribes to. That is, the idea that characteristics of populations change over time in response to environmental pressure (microevolution) is fairly undisputed. As such, few would assert that influenza virus does not mutate and/or rearrange its genome so that last year’s immunity does not protect against this year’s virus. It follows that studying the “evolutionary” patterns of change in the virus does help in predicting this year’s strain (although studying what strains are appearing in the animal population probably helps more).

Perhaps what Dr. Skell is objecting to is the claim that macroevolution, the idea that all life had a common ancestor, is essential to advances in experimental biology. This, after all, is a part of evolutionary theory that is under debate. But, here again it appears that the theory is helpful. In testing asthma medication in animal models, if there was no similarity between humans and animals, this would be a pointless endeavor. The question that then remains is whether the similarity between mice and men is due to common ancestry or a common designer–one to tackle another day!

Regardless, Dr. Skell is correct in his statement that, “the overselling of the theory of evolution…may have done a grave disservice…to modern biology.” Who would dispute that “the core background for students’ understanding and participation in future developments within biological science is not the immersion in historical biology”? Obviously, this time would be better spent learning about what organisms inhabit the earth, how they function and interact, and the methodologies available to study them.

There are more than enough biological facts out there, all of them understandable without the addition of what Dr. Skell calls the NAS’s reductionist philosophical or theological veneer of naturalistic evolution. AITSE would suggest that our science education would be greatly improved if teachers concentrated on them.