May 12, 2005
Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of
Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933
Dear Dr. Abrams:
I have been following the
controversy over the adoption of
new science standards in your
state with interest. I am
writing—as a member of the
National Academy of Sciences—to
voice my strong
support for the idea that
students should be able to study
scientific criticisms of the
evidence for modern evolutionary
theory along with the evidence
favoring the theory.
All too often, the issue of how
to teach evolutionary theory has
been dominated by voices at the
extremes. On one extreme, many
religious activists have advocated
for Bible-based ideas about
creation to be taught and for
evolution to be eliminated from
the science curriculum entirely.
On the other hand, many committed
Darwinian biologists present
students with an idealized version
of the theory that glosses over
real problems and prevents
students from learning about
genuine scientific criticisms of
it.
Both these extremes are
mistaken. Evolution is an
important theory and students need
to know about it. But scientific
journals now document many
scientific problems and criticisms
of evolutionary theory and
students need to know about these
as well.
Many of the scientific
criticisms of which I speak are
well known by scientists in
various disciplines, including the
disciplines of chemistry and
biochemistry, in which I have done
my work. I have found that some of
my
scientific colleagues are very
reluctant to acknowledge the
existence of problems with
evolutionary theory to the general
public. They display an almost religious
zeal for a strictly Darwinian
view of biological origins.
Darwinian evolution is an
interesting theory about the
remote history of life.
Nonetheless, it has little
practical impact on those branches
of science that do not address
questions of biological history
(largely based on stones, the
fossil evidence). Modern biology
is engaged in the examination of
tissues from living organisms with
new methods and instruments. None
of the great discoveries in
biology and medicine over the past
century depended on guidance from
Darwinian evolution---it provided
no support.
As an aside, one might ask what
Darwin would have written today if
he was aware of the present state
of knowledge of cell biology,
rather than that of the mid 19th
century when it was generally
believed the cell was an enclosed
blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I
draw your attention to what Prof.
James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist,
U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).
For those
scientists who take it seriously,
Darwinian evolution has functioned
more as a philosophical belief
system than as a testable
scientific hypothesis. This
quasi-religious function of the
theory is, I think, what lies
behind many of the extreme
statements that you have doubtless
encountered from some scientists
opposing any criticism of
neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It
is also why many scientists make
public statements about the theory
that they would not defend
privately to other scientists like
me.
In my judgment, this state of
affairs has persisted mainly
because too
many scientists were afraid to
challenge what had become a
philosophical orthodoxy among
their colleagues. Fortunately,
that is changing as many
scientists are now beginning to
examine the evidence for
neo-Darwinism more openly and
critically in scientific journals.
Intellectual freedom is
fundamental to the scientific
method. Learning to think
creatively, logically and
critically is the most important
training that young scientists can
receive. Encouraging students to
carefully examine the evidence for
and against neo-Darwinism,
therefore, will help prepare
students not only to understand
current scientific arguments, but
also to do good scientific
research.
I commend you for your efforts
to ensure that students are more
fully informed about current
debates over neo-Darwinism in the
scientific community.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of
Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry,
Emeritus
Penn State University
