by Richard Peachey

A well-beloved mantra of the secular scientific establishment is: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” This was the title of a classic article by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973 [Mar.]. The American Biology Teacher 35[3]:125-129). But . . . how realistic is this oft-repeated slogan?

As A. S. Wilkins set out to introduce a special issue of BioEssays on the topic of “evolutionary processes,” he wrote: “The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. 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. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” [Bold print in the quotes indicates emphasis added.]

“Yet,” Wilkins suggested hopefully, “the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing” (2000. BioEssays 22:1051).

After interviewing Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, and author of that museum’s general text on evolution), Tom Bethell wrote: “Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as ‘often unnecessary’ in biology. ‘In fact,’ he said, ‘they could do perfectly well without it.’ Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were ‘the unified field theory of biology,’ holding the whole subject together—and binding the profession to it. ‘Once something has that status,’ he said, ‘it becomes like a religion.’ ” (1985 [Feb.]. “Agnostic Evolutionists: The taxonomic case against Darwin.” Harper’s 270[1617]:52).

Nobel laureate Francis Crick, though an ardent evolutionist, wrote in his autobiography: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood” (1988. What Mad Pursuit. New York: Basic Books. pp. 138f.).

Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe, in his now-famous book Darwin’s Black Box, showed that the day-to-day work of his fellow biochemists is carried out with virtually no mention of “evolution.” As he observed, “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations” (1996. New York: The Free Press. p. 185).

A hostile reviewer of Behe’s book felt obliged to agree: “Most biochemists have only a meagre understanding of, or interest in, evolution. As Behe points out, for the thousand-plus scholarly articles on the biochemistry of cilia, he could find only a handful that seriously addressed evolution. This indifference is universal. Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution” (Andrew Pomiankowski. 1996 [Sept. 14]. “The God of the tiny gaps.” New Scientist 151[2047]:45).

While advertising a 2007 conference focusing on “Evolutionary Biology and Human Health,” the American Institute of Biological Sciences claimed: “Principles and methods of evolutionary biology are becoming increasingly important in many aspects of health science, among them understanding the human genome, the normal functions and malfunctions of human genes, and the origin and evolution of infectious diseases” (2007 [May]. BioScience 57[5]:456).

But biologist Peter Armbruster, while sympathetic, had to splash cold water on such enthusiasm: “Evolution receives scant attention on the U.S. Medical College Admission Test (the MCAT) and almost no coverage in medical school curricula, a situation with a pervasive canalizing effect on undergraduate biology curricula in the United States. The status quo was challenged in 1991 when G.C. Williams and R.M. Nesse published a paper with the optimistic title ‘The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine.’ Seventeen years later, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the sun has been rising only slowly. . . . one of the central arguments of evolutionary medicine has always been that evolutionary concepts should be emphasized in the education of clinicians. Unfortunately, this proposition has not been well received by medical schools thus far, probably in part because evolutionary insights have led to relatively few clinical applications” (2008 [Aug.]. “The sun rises [slowly] on Darwinian medicine.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23]8]:422).

Pennsylvania State University chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences, wrote an article titled “Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology” (2005 [Aug. 29]. The Scientist 19[16]:10). After quoting A. S. Wilkins (see above), Skell stated: “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.

Skell concluded: “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.” (This article by Skell generated “a tremendous response from readers.” For Skell’s rejoinder to the critical letters, see <>.)