Evolution is losing support among scientists

From SkepticWiki

Contents 1 Definition 2 Examples 3 Discussion 3.1 Are there any creationist scientists? 3.2 ”Project Steve” and the “Four Day Petition” 3.3 Is there a controversy in science over evolution? 4 What scientists say about evolution 5 Related Articles

[edit] Definition

One will often come across claims by creationists that evolution is losing support among scientists, that "evolution is on its last legs", that scientists are “flocking from it in droves”, that “most scientists reject evolution” and so forth.

These claims are often bolstered by quotations out of context from real scientists, as noted by the National Academy of Sciences:

"Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.” [1]

[edit] Examples

The former Young Earth Creationist Glen Morton has compiled a list of such claims going back to the 1820s, under the title The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism [2]. The first few items on his list actually predate Darwin, since Young Earthers were in those days predicting the imminent demise of geology. The following example was written in 1894:

"It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration."

And this example comes from a hundred years later:

"Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation."

It appears in a book entitled The Imminent Demise of Darwinism.

[edit] Discussion

This claim is really a combination of two creationist claims: that there is a scientific controversy over evolution; and that the creationists are winning. As we shall see, neither of these is remotely true.

As with the claim that evolution is an atheist theory, the argument smacks of dishonesty. That is, we can understand why the “creationist-in-the-street” believes that scientists reject evolution: it’s because he read it in a little creationist pamphlet illustrated with little cartoons. But when we hear the same disinformation coming from, say, the Discovery Institute, or the Institute for Creation Research, we have to conclude that they must know perfectly well that it isn’t true.

To rebut their claim, we need only see what scientists have to say about evolution, and we shall do this at perhaps unnecessary length at the end of this article. First we shall review the question of whether any scientists are creationists.

[edit] Are there any creationist scientists?

It is sometimes said that no serious scientist is a creationist. This is not quite true. It would be accurate to say that creationist scientists form a vanishingly small minority, who have largely made their views invisible by not attempting to publish any justification for creationism in scientific journals.

The creationist group Answers in Genesis have attempted to compile a list of Young Earth Creationist scientists[3]. They have allowed themselves considerable latitude in compiling this list. It would be interesting to know by what criterion a plastic surgeon is a scientist, and what knowledge of evolutionary theory is necessary to perform a breast augmentation. Nor can we entirely acknowledge as “scientists” a dentist; or an aerospace engineer; or an expert in architectural engineering; or a philosopher; or... well, we need not belabor the point.

Then again, they feel free to make up the numbers with people who are indeed scientists, but whose qualifications have nothing to do with the life sciences or geology.

They have also given themselves considerable latitude in deciding who gets to be a creationist: for example they feel able to include Dr Leonid Korochkin on their list (twice!) although he believes in an old earth, macroevolution, and common descent: however, he has reservations about the theory of evolution, which purports to explain these things, and so this is, it seems, sufficient for the people at Answers in Genesis to co-opt him (one presumes without his knowledge) as a supporter.

Even with all this padding, there are only about two hundred names on their list.

The Institute for Creation research has produced a similar list of creationist scientists [4] which has about 130 names on it.

As to whether the small number of people on these lists really represent how tiny the support is for creationism among scientists, the magazine Newsweek reported in 1987: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism." [5]. That would be a little over 0.1%.

[edit] ”Project Steve” and the “Four Day Petition”

The creationists’ little lists have been parodied by “Project Steve” and by the “Four Day Petition”.

“Project Steve” is a petition reading as follows:

”Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."[6]

You need two qualifications to sign the petition. First, you must have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field. And secondly, you must be called Steve. or other variants on the name, i.e. Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, or Stefan. At the time of writing, there are over a thousand "Steves" on the list, outnumbering by ten to one or more the creationists with similarly relevant qualifications appearing on the creationists’ lists.

The “Four Day Petition” reads as follows:

"A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science : We, as scientists trained in fields that utilize evolutionary theory, do not consider Intelligent Design to be a fact-based science appropriate for teaching in public schools because it is theistic in nature, not empirical, and therefore does not pass the rigors of scientific hypothesis testing and theory development. As such, we petition that Intelligent Design not be presented in public schools as a viable science within the scientific curriculum." [7]

The petition was only available for signing in the four days beginning September 28th 2005 and ending October 1st 2005, without advance publicity and without funding. The purpose of this project was to show how many more scientists would sign this petition in four days than have signed the Discovery Institute's petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" [8] over the course of four years. The petition was signed by 7,732 verified signatories who are trained scientists, of whom 6,965 are US residents, including 4066 with a PhD.

[edit] Is there a controversy in science over evolution?

There are some people on the list supplied by Answers in Genesis who are scientists who have relevant qualifications (that is, in geology or the life sciences) and links to interviews give their reasons for adhering to creationism. The most common reason given by the actual scientists on the list for adherence to Creationism is "because the Bible says so", as in this example from Kurt Wise:

"'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory."

However, occasionally the scientists on the list do offer some quasi-scientific reasoning. This, for example, comes from Angela Meyer, Creationist, botanist, and expert in kiwi fruit:

"This is all so complex and so interdependent that these systems cannot have come about gradually by chance... In addition, the extravagance of shape variation, color and patterns of flowers is a clear expression of a divine artist. Evolutionary processes would most likely produce a much more restricted, conservative and utilitarian display (if evolutionary processes were, in fact, possible)."

It is perhaps surprising that someone can manage to get a degree in botany and a PhD in horticulture without knowing what the theory of evolution says, or why flowers evolved; but given that this can, apparently happen, we need not look far for a reason why, despite the existence of biologists prepared to espouse creationism, their arguments never find their way into peer-reviewed biological journals. Here is another sample, from Walter Veith, zoologist:

"Natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, less fit organisms are eliminated and the fitter organisms survive to propagate the species. Organisms thus survive the process because they are fitter, and they are fitter because they survive. Also, the process operates by elimination, not addition. In order for the fitter to survive, there must have been a less fit that did not survive."

This argument is so bad, and so long discredited, that Answers In Genesis, the host site, kindly provides a footnote pointing out to the reader that it is filed in their list of "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". Again, it is not hard to see why a creationist argument that even creationists choke on has never found its way into the pages of Science or Nature.

According to the editors of these magazines and other such journals, they receive few papers even attempting to justify creationism and publish none[9], and if this sample (which was taken at random) is typical of creationist scientists, then we can see why. In the first place, arguments from literal interpretation of the Bible have had no weight in scientific circles since the Pope tried to use it as the clincher in his wrangle with Galileo. In the second place, we see that such makeshift substitutes as these scientists can find for scientific justification for creationism are not the result of deep research in their fields, or of an accurate knowledge of evolutionary biology, but of reading tatty creationist pamphlets and memorizing a few attractive phrases. If Walter Veith, quoted above, had behaved as a scientist or even as a scholar, he might have checked to see if his stuff about “circular reasoning” had any basis in fact, and he would have found that it is wrong; that the man who came up with this supposed critique of evolution, Karl Popper, retracted it publicly when he realized he was wrong; and that it is disdained by the more reputable creationists.

It would seem, in short, that insofar as a scientist is a Young Earth Creationist, he ceases to function as a scientist and a scholar. Whether or not this is the true explanation, it is a fact that creationists do not publish in scientific journals.

Three separate scholarly reviews of the literature have confirmed this within the past decade or so, the first by George W. Gilchrist in the mid-90s, and subsequently by Barbara Forrest and Lawrence M. Krauss. Their findings were simple: no papers have appeared in the scientific literature supporting “creation science” or “intelligent design”. Conversely, as noted by Scientific American:

"No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.” [10]

With the use of the Internet, it is not hard to do a literature search of our own. Consulting the electronic archive PubMed (the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature [11]) we find that there are 168778 articles which mention evolution [12] , and 46 which mention creationism [13] : none, it would seem, with much approval. Most of these articles are news reportage, history, or letters to the editor concerning the attempts of creationists to get their views; there is also a sprinkling of articles by psychologists trying to find psychological factors associated with creationism. There are no specific arguments against evolution whatsoever, and, tellingly, only a couple of papers in which scientists bother to address creationist claims.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that not only are creationists not telling the truth when they claim to be winning the controversy, but they are also not telling the truth when they claim that there is a controversy within science. It is not just that creationist scientists are losing the fight: there is no fight, because the tiny minority of scientists who are creationist refuse to enter the arena of scientific discourse and do battle for their views.

A recent survey of heads of department of biology departments in US universities asked them:

"Regarding the issue of "Intelligent Design theory" vs. current biological consensus on the mechanisms of evolution - is there a difference of professional opinion within your department that you feel could be accurately described as a scientific controversy?" [14] (emphasis in the original)

Of seventy-three respondents, seventy-one said there was no such controversy in their departments.

[edit] What scientists say about evolution

To find out whether evolution is in fact losing support amongst scientists, it is necessary only to see what scientists have to say about it. Compiling lists of individuals, in imitation of Answers in Genesis, would be a lifelong task, so we shall confine ourselves to the official statements of scientific organizations or the heads of such institutions, and to statements signed by large numbers of scientists.

It is interesting to note the circumstances under which these statements were made, for it is only under extraordinary political circumstances that scientific organizations go to the trouble of issuing public statements explaining that one of the bedrock theories of science is indeed reliable. With one exception all the statements below were prompted by the attempts of politicians to remove evolutionary biology from the classroom, or to introduce creationism or Intelligent Design into the classroom, and a look at the quotations in their full context will reveal that they were often issued in response to a particular court case.

"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). [15]

"The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."

---Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. State Academies of Science: The California Academy of Sciences, The Florida Academy of Sciences, The Idaho Academy of Science, The Indiana Academy of Science, The Iowa Academy of Science, The Kentucky Academy of Science, The Mississippi Academy of Sciences, The Nebraska Academy of Sciences, The New Mexico Academy of Science, The New York Academy of Sciences, The North Dakota Academy of Science, The Ohio Academy of Science, The South Carolina Academy of Science, The Tennessee Academy of Science, the Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences, The West Virginia Academy of Sciences, The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Other Scientific Organizations: The American Anthropological Association, The American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Association of American Medical Colleges, The Astronomical Society of the Pacific, The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, The Southern California Skeptics, The Southern California Academy of Sciences. [16]

"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. [17]

"Students should be able to learn about the nature of science, which can be tested based on our observations of the natural world. Intelligent design does not fit that criterion... members of the mainstream scientific research community, [...] maintain there is no controversy about evolution, a unifying principle of biology. Many US scientists, concerned about losing ground to other countries, worry that American students who do not learn about evolution will be less prepared to embark on careers in science, engineering and technology."

--- The American Institute of Biological Sciences [18]

"Evolutionary biology provides the key to understanding the principles governing the origin and extinction of species. It provides causal explanations, based on history and on processes of genetic change and adaptation, for the full sweep of biological phenomena, ranging from the molecular to the ecological. Thus, evolutionary biology allows us to determine not only how and why organisms have become the way they are, but also what processes are currently acting to modify or change them."

--- From a report produced for the National Science Foundation and endorsed by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Naturalists, the Animal Behavior Society, the Ecological Society of America, the Genetics Society of America, the Paleontological Society, the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, the Society of Systematic Biologists and the Society for the Study of Evolution[19].

”The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.”

--- The National Academy of Sciences [20]

"The faculty in my department variously regard the ID crowd as insane, ignorant, dangerous, or the butt of jokes ... there is no controversy among our faculty about the broad ideas of modern evolutionary biology; that evolution has occurred through processes of natural selection, isolation with genetic drift, and sexual selection. In life sciences, evolution has the same status as a "theory" as the idea that genetic information is encoded by nucleic acids, or that cells are bounded by membranes. That is to say, the evidence is so strong and comes from so many directions, that to deny these fundamental concepts is, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, to be delusional."

--- Stuart Dryer (in response to Robert Camp's survey of heads of biology departments as to whether there was a controversy over evolution in their departments [21])

"This question has been discussed several times amongst my faculty and I can respond definitively that 100% of the faculty in my department (26 persons) support the theory of evolution and not a single person considers ID a legitimate scientific concept. Thus, there is no professional controversy. The claim by ID proponents that there is growing support for ID by trained scientists is simply not supported by the data."

--- Dan Bush (in response to Robert Camp's survey [22])

"No controversy in our biological sciences department of 40 faculty. All faculty accept that mutation occurs, and that populations have changes in gene frequencies over time, some leading to changes in form and function. Many faculty hold religious beliefs, but none of the faculty challenge the validity of evolution and the general time frame that evolution has taken place on Earth (i.e., over billions of years)."

--- Robert H. Jones (in response to Robert Camp's survey [23])

"There is no sense in which "Intelligent Design" is science - as logic, it is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, a material fallacy, and there is no associated experimental program or testable hypothesis. Thus, there could be no scientific controversy."

--- Elliot Meyerowitz (in response to Robert Camp's survey [24])

"Absolutely no controversy regarding the reality of evolution in biology or its basic mechanisms. Evolution of life on earth from a common ancestor is the best supported and most important general principle in biology."

--- Thomas D. Pollard (in response to Robert Camp's survey [25])

"We (biochemists) see Evolution and the phylogenetic origin of living systems at the molecular level. It is very real and determined with scientific methodology. This has no bearing on the religious belief of many scientist on their spirituality and deep personal beliefs of a superior being."

--- Earl D. Mitchell Jr. (in response to Robert Camp's survey [26])

"The entire biological sciences field from biochemistry to ecology is predicated on the fact of evolution. In 100 years of intensive research no facts inconsistent with evolutionary theory have ever been found ... There is no controversy whatsoever among the many thousands of scientists in the field about the fact of evolution."

--- Tom Blumenthal (in response to Robert Camp's survey [27])

"There is no controversy. Evolution is fundamental to the understanding of Biology ... I will go further. Proponents of intelligent design have displayed an inordinate level of intellectual dishonesty."

--- Vincent M. Cassone (in response to Robert Camp's survey [28])

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding."

--- American Association for the Advancement of Science [29]

"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. "

--- American Association of University Professors [30]

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."

--- Project Steve: 746 scientists who "have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field" and who are called Steve, Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, or Stefan[31].

NOTE: See the subsection on “Project Steve and the Four Day Petition”, above, for more details.

"A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science : We, as scientists trained in fields that utilize evolutionary theory, do not consider Intelligent Design to be a fact-based science appropriate for teaching in public schools because it is theistic in nature, not empirical, and therefore does not pass the rigors of scientific hypothesis testing and theory development. As such, we petition that Intelligent Design not be presented in public schools as a viable science within the scientific curriculum."

--- The "Four Day Petition", signed by 7,732 verified signatories who are trained scientists, of whom 6,965 are US residents including 4066 with a PhD, in the four days beginning September 28th 2005 and ending October 1st 2005. [32]

NOTE: See the subsection on “Project Steve and the Four Day Petition”, above, for more details.

"As a historic representative of the scientific profession and designated advisor to the Federal Government in matters of science, the Academy states unequivocally that the tenets of "creation science" are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism has no place in a science curriculum at any level, that its proposed teaching would be impossible in any constructive sense for wellinformed and conscientious science teachers, and that its teaching would be contrary to the nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of scientific and technical personnel."

--- National Academy of Sciences [33]

"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists ... The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new evidence becomes available. Only one thing in science is not open to change: its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, that these be in principle repeatable, and that new evidence be considered. Scientific creationists adopt an entirely different approach in their attempt to explain the natural world ... The methodology and conclusions of scientists and "scientific creationists" are therefore incompatible, and the term "scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms, since it has no basis in science."

---Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada [34]

"Scientific evidence indicates beyond any doubt that life has existed on Earth for billions of years. This life has evolved through time producing vast numbers of species of plants and animals, most of which are extinct."

--- American Geological Institute [35]

"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This often-quoted assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology... The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology, provide exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, extinction and other well-established components of current evolutionary theory."

--- National Association of Biology Teachers [36]

"There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place."

--- National Science Teachers Association [37]

" The explanatory power of the theory of evolution has been recognised, however, by all biologists, and their work has expanded and developed it."

--- Australian Academy of Science [38]

"As noted in a booklet issued by the National Academy of Sciences, 'Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences'".

--- Statement by authors of biology textbooks [39]

"Evolution is the only currently acceptable scientific theory for the development of life on earth, and is supported by an enormous body of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines, including, but not limited to, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. Across all of these scientific disciplines, the data are in congruence with regards to the theory of evolution, and there are no data that contradict the fundamental truth of evolution. Such consilience gives credence and support to the concept that all life is related and that it has evolved over time primarily through the process of natural selection."

--- Association of Southeastern Biologists [40]

"Discoveries in phylogenetics, paleontology, genetics, and developmental and molecular biology give us the capacity to test our theories and to develop new ones, using a vast store of empirical data and increasingly sophisticated methods. Continued opportunity to perform such tests has resulted in further support for descent with modification, justifying the fundamental role that evolution plays in our understanding of humanity's place in nature."

--- California Academy of Sciences [41]

"The great majority of scientists and teachers of science in the primary schools, high schools, colleges, and universities of Georgia are both evolutionists and Christians ... Based upon overwhelming scientifically verifiable evidence to date, most scientists, regardless of religious preference, think that the earth and all forms of life evolved over a period of several billion years. Evolution can be viewed as a creative process continuing over long periods of time. The extensive evidence of evolution is not in opposition to the variety of religious concepts or creation by a supreme being. The causative beginning of primeval appearance of matter or life in our universe is not at issue. The evidence of evolution does not claim to reveal the primal source of energy, matter, or life."

--- Georgia Academy of Science [42]

"Creationist organizations ... claim to know of evidence that supports the idea of a young earth and that shows evolution to be impossible. Much of this "evidence" is inaccurate, out of date, and not accepted by recognized paleontologists and biologists. The total membership of these "scientific" creationist groups constitutes only a fraction of one percent of the scientific personnel in this country. Most of them are not trained in biology or geology, the areas in which professional judgments are made in the field of evolutionary theory. They often misrepresent the positions of respected scientists and quote them out of context to support their own views before audiences and government bodies."

--- Iowa Academy of Science [43]

"There is overwhelming acceptance by scientists of all disciplines that evolution is consistent with the weight of a vast amount of evidence. The understanding of the processes underlying evolution has provided the foundation upon which many of the tremendous advances in agriculture and medicine and theoretical biology have been built."

--- Kentucky Academy of Science [44]

"The understanding of the processes underlying evolution has provided the foundation upon which many of the tremendous advances in agriculture and medicine and theoretical biology have been built. Differences among scientists over questions of how evolution was accomplished do not obscure the basic agreement that evolution has occurred.

Most people who subscribe to religious views have developed belief systems that are compatible with evolution. There is a widespread consensus among theologians that biblical accounts of creation are misunderstood if they are treated as literal scientific explanations."

--- Kentucky Academy of Science [45]

"Whereas organic evolution is amenable to repeated observation and testing, and whereas the ideas of creation are not amenable to verification by observation and experimentation ... therefore be it resolved that the terms "creation science" or "scientific creationism" are artificial and have been used to refer to purported areas of knowledge that do not exist."

--- Louisiana Academy of Sciences [46]

"Creationists claim that biological evolution is a religious tenet; in fact it is one of the cornerstones of modern science. More than 50 years ago the North Carolina Academy of Science adopted a resolution declaring evolution an established law of nature"

--- North Carolina Academy of Science [47]

"Whereas, science is a systematic method of investigation based on continuous experimentation, observation, and measurement leading to evolving explanations of natural phenomena, explanations which are continuously open to further testing; and whereas, evolution fully satisfies these criteria ... the OAS urges citizens, educational authorities, and legislators to oppose the compulsory inclusion in science education curricula of beliefs that are not amenable to the process of scrutiny, testing, and revision that is indispensable to science."

--- Ohio Academy of Science [48]

"Whereas evolutionary theory is the indispensable foundation for the understanding of physical anthropology and biology; Whereas evolution is a basic component of many aspects of archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics; Whereas evolution is a basic component of allied disciplines such as the earth sciences and a cornerstone of 20thcentury science in general; Whereas a century of scientific research has confirmed the reality of evolution as a historical process, and the concept of evolution, in all its diversity, has explained the scientifically known evidence and successfully predicted fruitful paths of further research ... Be it moved that the American Anthropological Association affirms the necessity of teaching evolution as the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life, because the principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria."

--- American Anthropological Association [49]

"Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims."

--- The American Association of Physics Teachers [50]

"The theory of biological evolution is based on hundreds of years of scientific observation and experimentation and tens of thousands of scientific publications. It provides students with a unifying concept that explains the incredibly rich diversity of living things and their capacity to change and evolve over time to adapt to changing environments. It is a central component of modern biology and biotechnology. Evolution is an active field of research in which new discoveries continue to increase our knowledge and understanding of the specific processes and paths that biological evolution has followed over the millions of years that life has existed on earth.

--- American Chemical Society [51]

"Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory."

--- American Geophysical Union [52]

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory."

--- The Paleontological Society [53]

"A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status."

--- American Institute of Biological Science [54]

"Evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology (including physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics) and is a cornerstone of modern science, being central to biology, geology, and astronomy;

The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria... This consensus of scientific opinion is derived from biology, geology, paleontology, primatology, and archaeology."

--- Resolution of the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association [55]

"Principles of evolution are an essential part of the knowledge base of psychology."

--- American Psychological Association [56]

"Evolution is factual and essential to biological education."

--- American Society of Parasitologists [57]

"Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory that all living things have shared ancestors from which they have diverged. It is one of the most fundamental building blocks in science, touching nearly every other discipline including those that directly effect humans, such as medicine and agriculture."

--- Ecological Society of America [58]

"The GSA supports educating students in genetics, and consequently feels it important to express its views on the teaching of evolution in elementary and secondary schools. The GSA strongly endorses such teaching, as genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time."

--- Genetics Society of America [59]

"We geologists find incontrovertible evidence in the rocks that life has existed here on Earth for several billions of years and that it has evolved through time."

--- Geological Society of America [60]

"People who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing."

--- Botanical Society of America [61]

"The evidence is abundant and irrefutable. Life has changed drastically over earth's history."

--- Society for Amateur Scientists [62]

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

--- Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology [63]

"Ideas about the structure and evolution of the universe, including Earth and its life forms, are unifying concepts in science."

--- Society of Physics Students [64]

"The historical fact of evolution, as common descent with modification for life on earth, and the concepts used to study evolutionary change in living systems, provide the unifying theme for all biological knowledge."

--- Society of Systematic Biologists [65]

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time ... Paleontologists may dispute, on the basis of the available evidence, the tempo and mode of evolution in a particular group at a particular time, but they do not argue about whether evolution took place: that is a fact."

--- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [66]

"The Kentucky Paleontological Society (KPS) is opposed to any attempt to teach creationism or omit mention of evolution from public school instruction. "

--- Kentucky Paleontological Society [67]

"Our planet is billions of years old, and life has existed on it for a large part of that time ... Evolution occurred in the past and is still occurring today."

--- California Science Teachers Assciation [68]

"The age of the Earth as determined by various methods including radiometric dating of meteorites and of the Earth's rocks is approximately 4.6 billion years. Creationist criticisms of that age are based upon misinterpretation of valid data and upon obsolete data."

--- New Orleans Geological Society [69]

"Biological evolution is a fact."

--- Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists [70]

[edit] Related Articles

• Creationist Arguments