Questioning Darwin

Ten professors and Ph.D. graduates affiliated with the UW have entered the Darwin debate, expressing skepticism over evolutionary biology.

These 10 affiliates have signed a petition called Dissent from Darwin, produced by the Seattle-based Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a division of the Discovery Institute and a promoter of intelligent design (ID) theory. The petition indicates scientists’ skepticism of “random mutation and natural selection” to explain the origin of life, and calls for a “careful examination” of Darwinian theory.

Scott Chambers is an affiliate professor with the UW in the chemistry and material science departments and works full-time at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. He signed the petition and supports ID, which he says “provides a broad, satisfactory framework for understanding the origin of the cosmos, and the origin, diversity and complexity of life on earth.”

ID is an origin theory that argues biological structures of life are too complex to have risen out of random mutation or natural selection, and that they suggest the influence of an intelligent cause at work. Proponents argue complex organs such as eyes or digestive systems could not evolve piecemeal, but rather require the entire system in order to function.

Chamber said he disagrees with creationism, an older and more radical anti-evolutionary theory based on the Bible’s creation story, seeing it as an attempt to “to force fit select scientific results into their concept of the meaning of the book of Genesis.”

ID, however, is both “objective and rational,” he said. While Chambers claims he has great respect for Darwinian biology, he said he would like to see a more level playing field in determining whether biological structures arose from design or chance. He hopes that his signature on the Dissent from Darwin petition might further this goal.

“Darwinism is not all there is to how we got here,” said George Gates, a professor in the Department of Otolaryngology, who also signed the petition. Gates is also critical of ID and creationism.

“Most of creationism and ID are funded privately because they don’t qualify as science,” he said.

Gates argues evolution should be taught as science, but that teaching theology is equally important in explaining the origin of life.

“I simply affirm that science and religion work in parallel magesteria and each has much to learn from each other,” he said.

Robert Crowther, a spokesman for the CSC, said he believes the work being done on ID is “real research that has significant scientific value,” and that studying it is insured by academic freedom.

“We do think that there are serious questions that are being raised” about Darwinian evolutionary biology, he said.

Significant scientific opposition to teaching and studying evolutionary biology would change research priorities, public policy funding and possibly introduce alternative theories into school and college curriculum regarding the development of life on Earth. However, the number of scientists who accept evolutionary biology far exceeds those who oppose it.

Joe Felsenstein, a UW professor of genome sciences and biology, is a strong critic of creationism and ID, seeing them as disingenuous attempts to create the illusion that there is a serious debate about evolution where none exists in the scientific community. He points to the labeling of evolutionary biology as “Darwinism” in order “to make it appear as a dogmatic belief rather than an academic field of research.”

As of June, Dissent from Darwin had listed more than 600 signatures. In response, evolutionary biologists have started their own petition affirming evolutionary biology called Project Steve. Project Steve has 750 signatures, including those of 22 scientists affiliated with the UW, but with the additional stipulation that only scientists named Steve can sign this petition. Variants of the name Steve are help by approximately 1 percent of the population in the United States.