Science Literature

The Editors of Nature give three cheers for the newly published NAS booklet that defends evolutionary theory against ID and Creationism.

Spreading the word - the NAS booklet

In their opinion, the document demonstrates:

"it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored."

Not only is evolution a fact, they say, "Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine." Consequently, it behoves everyone to promote evolution!

"Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it."

Here are just a few constructive responses to this missionary fervour.

1. It is important to distinguish between empirical science and historical science. One involves the repeatability of controlled experimentation; the other adopts the 'smoking gun' methodology appropriate for unique past events. The distinction is important, because all parties in these debates about evolution share a commitment to empirical data. The differences emerge when we move from present-day processes to reconstruct the past. This is why claims that evolution is just as much a "fact" as "the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun" are philosophically defective.

2. The Editorial and the NAS booklet perpetuate the polarised 'science vs religion' template for the debate. Both overlook the fact that much of the evidence for "evolution" is perfectly compatible with ID or creationist thinking. The debate is about what these evidences actually mean. The debate is a scientific one, yet the Editorial and the NAS booklet imply that science is only being advanced by the evolution side.

3. It is not true that evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Biological research, in the main, proceeds using design principles: the presumption of functionality, etc. The 2005 survey by Professor Philip Skell refutes the Editorial's claim:

"Darwinian evolution, whatever its other virtues, does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs."

Similarly with medicine. Traditional medicine is based on the premise that the human body is designed in an intelligent way. Attempts to launch "Darwinian medicine" are a recent phenomenon.

4. The exhortation to promote the theory of evolution misses the pulse of the debate. What is needed is engagement with the science and the underpinning philosophical issues. It is not a case of shouting louder, but of interacting in a meaningful way. Resistance to dialogue is a conspicuous feature of our age, but dialogue is what we need to do justice to these challenges to evolutionary theory.

Spread the word (Editorial)
Nature 451, 108 (10 January 2008) | doi:10.1038/451108b

Abstract : Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.

See also:

Holden, C. Evolution: Read All About It! ScienceNOW Daily News, 4 January 2008.

Skell, P.S., Why do we invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Aug. 29, 2005, 19(16), 10.

Critique of NAS Report on Evolution - Part 1. Hail Darwin! by Cornelius Hunter, ID Report, ARN, 10 January 2008

Critique of NAS Report on Evolution -- Part 2. The Facts about Intelligent Design, ID Report, ARN, 13 January 2008