Reactions

Challenging evolution

Thank you for your editorial "Unintelligible Design" (C&EN, Feb. 7, page 3).

In your piece, you write that the skeletons in the Smithsonian Museum screamed of "descent with modification from a common ancestor." I would like to kindly submit to you an equally valid explanation: The relationships between the skeletons indicate a "common designer." Unfortunately, neither a common ancestor nor a common designer has been observed, because no human observer was present to record the event.

Furthermore, the fossil record does not give irrefutable proof of either possibility. However, I prefer the "common designer" theory because intelligent design, even man-made design, is self-evident--consider the arrowhead versus a pebble weathered by the elements, or the presidents' heads carved into Mount Rushmore.

The problem with evolution "through random variations guided by natural selection" is that random variations do not give rise to new genetic information, but to new combinations of existing genetic information. At least in the present, greater complexity or higher organisms cannot come about without new genetic information. Random variations lead to microevolution (that is, variety within the dog family), but do not lead to macroevolution (such as reptile to bird). No amount of observed microevolution has ever led to macroevolution. Furthermore, we recognize mutations as being harmful to organisms (a loss of information), and natural selection selects from existing combinations of genetic information to stabilize a population. One would have to assume that different natural laws operated in the past for macroevolution to occur.

It is true that the majority of Americans do not accept evolution wholeheartedly, because most Americans are not atheists. In order to fully accept evolution, without any acknowledgement of a creator/designer, one must have a bent toward an atheistic worldview. This worldview denies the spiritual aspect of man and only accepts the material view that "the material realm is all that exists" (see "Science's New Heresy Trial," World, Feb. 19, page 26). As scientists, we should consider all the evidence and not compel others to bow only at the altar of evolution.

John A. Dingess
Hanover Park, Ill.

I disagree with your editorial. i hope that anyone trained as a scientist would know that the scientific method should not lead anyone to conclude that similar structures in animals prove that they descended from a common ancestor. Such a conclusion has to be based on faith that evolution is the mechanism by which the diverse creatures in this world came into being, and such faith is often accompanied by belief that this all came about by chance.

It also takes faith to believe that the extreme complexity of even the simplest organisms and their ability to reproduce themselves through the ages result from intelligent design. For me, it is much easier to have faith that the amazing diversity of living organisms and our ability to understand and reason did not come about by chance.

Luke A. Schaap
Lansing, Ill.

As a scientist, my research is greatly shaped by our understanding of evolutionary theory. Note that I purposely used the word "theory." Labeling evolution a theory in an effort to denigrate it only demonstrates the ignorance of those who dismiss evolution as the process that shapes our living world.

I say, let school boards place stickers on high school textbooks to identify evolution as a theory. Let's also be sure to indicate on those same stickers that this theory has continuously withstood hypothesis testing and needs no alternative hypothesis. While we are at it, let us also require that stickers be placed on Bibles stating, "Creationism has no basis in fact or theory--it is a belief." Or maybe we should follow the lead of the late Stephen Jay Gould by resolving that scientific theory and religious belief have no business competing in the same arena.

Bruce A. Kimball
Fort Collins, Colo.

In your editorial, you make the statement that for chemists "evolution is one of our organizing principles." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Chemical properties don't "evolve"; they stay the same. There's no reason to believe that chemicals on the early Earth behaved any differently than they do today.

Another interesting claim you make is that collections of skeletons (fossils) "scream" descent from a common ancestry (that is, Darwinian evolution). Well, maybe they do for some people, but not for others. The main characteristics of the fossil record are abrupt appearance and stasis. That is, new animal species appear suddenly in the fossil record and then remain pretty much the same during their time on Earth. This pattern is hardly what one would expect from Darwinian evolution, which is supposed to be a gradual process. If Darwin were right, fossil deposits should be full of intermediate forms, but they're not.

You would have us believe that Darwin's theory is a proven fact, and that we really shouldn't have to fight against intelligent design and other pretenders to evolution's throne. The science establishment would certainly agree with this viewpoint. But when a scientific theory is held immune from critique, it leaves the realm of science and becomes dogma.

Darwinian evolution may or may not be true. But it is becoming increasingly clear that intelligent design presents a serious challenge to the Darwinian establishment. The sooner the scientific community takes an honest look at the claims of design theory, the closer we will be to understanding the development of life on Earth.

Robert Lattimer
Hudson, Ohio

Exhibits at national museums are the showpieces for evolution, so it's no wonder they look so convincing--that's their purpose. In all cases, as with all of evolution, you have a few facts surrounded by massive numbers of assumptions--with the whole package presented as fact.

Evolution is not the organizing principle of modern biology; cell theory and genetics hold that position. Look into "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" for yourself, for example. You will find that the evidence presented for this by Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s has been proven false--yet the idea persists today. Or try the horse series shown in most biology books: Fossils of the earliest horse fossil have been found in the same rock layer as the most recent fossil--yet the earliest is still said to "evolve" into the most recent. Charles Darwin saw variation in the Galapagos Islands but called it evolution. This goes on and on.

Again, evolution is a massive list of assumptions, in many different disciplines, presented as fact. Check it out for yourself. See that there are sound scientific reasons for questioning evolution.

Chemical evolution of life is the weak link of evolution, the foundation. If you cannot get life started this way, the entire edifice falls. So, yes, chemists should look into this area, but only if they are willing to let the data speak for itself instead of imposing preconceived ideas and notions on what it says.

Frank Lut
Honolulu

I was impressed by the clear reasoning you developed in your editorials on intelligent design and global climate change (C&EN, Jan. 24, page 3). Evolution fits most of the facts developed by biologists and chemists relating to the morphology and biochemistry of all living things, from viruses and bacteria to plants and animals. Certainly we can speak of it as a fact in the same way that we understand that gravity is a fact.

Global climate change is a fact that is supported by many observations made by numerous independent scientists. The interpretations of these observations are what is in dispute, especially the role played by humans in these changes. The vast majority of the experts, to the best of their ability, agree that human activity is a leading cause of climate change and that the warming predicted by computer modeling will lead to serious problems or even disasters in many parts of the world. The predicted results may not be as severe, but there is also a risk that our predictions are off in the other direction. The prudent thing is to take action now. I regret that the Bush Administration not only blocks action at home but also tries to prevent action at the international level.

Seymour Pomerantz
Rehovot, Israel

Your editorial is an outrageous insult to chemists and chemical engineers who believe in an intelligent designer and who are not afraid or embarrassed to call him or her God.

How dare you presume to object to the teaching of an alternate explanation for the creation of the universe than blind chance? What are your credentials in philosophy and theology that allow you to speak with such arrogant authority for your explanation and so demeaningly of someone else's? As a person of science, you above all should know that you cannot prove that someone or something does not exist. All the bones in the world would not prove the nonexistence of a divine being.

Not for one second do I believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days. I don't know anyone who does. However, the idea that evolution was directed by an intelligent designer is an absolutely valid explanation of the observed facts, and it is rejected a priori by persons infected by the attitudes of 18th- and 19th-century scientists and philosophers who thought they had the whole world figured out. The debacle of man's inhumanity to man of the 20th century, in particular the misuse of science by the Germans and Japanese, seems to have had no effect on the sensibilities of these moderns.

Evolution by blind chance leads us back to the idea that "man is the measure of all things," a philosophical concept that predates Aristotle. Morality comes from the sword--"might makes right"--or the ballot box, "the majority rules." It validates totalitarian governments and anything they do. The absolute standard of morality is gone. Government sets standards by making things legal or illegal, but nothing is right or wrong absolutely. The danger of this idea for the well-being of society cannot be overstated; anything goes.

We have so much to do to educate the public away from fear of chemicals and the chemical industry and toward some reasonable approach to nuclear power and other alternate sources of energy that we can ill afford the time to promote an unprovable, atheistic explanation of creation.

Raymond S. Martin
Beverly, Mass.

Sparking the youth

I would like to support the position taken by Gary J. Banuk in the letter "Finding a future for ACS" (C&EN, March 7, page 4). I have been a member of ACS for nearly 50 years and was an interested chemist long before that. Some 80 years ago, I got my first chemistry set, full of chemicals now deemed dangerous in the hands of young people, but it opened a door to a wonderful world that I never left. That early interest was encouraged by my high school science teacher and led to a degree in chemistry in 1939 from Harvard College.

My entire career was in industry, and, like Banuk, I saw the considerable achievements of unsung, practicing chemists who put theory to work in ways that have resulted in the high standard of living we have today. That work still goes on, even though the current fad is all about drugs and biological interactions. In our company, the most productive "idea men" were not the doctoral graduates, but rather those with master's and bachelor's degrees. What differentiated them all was an early fascination with chemistry plus the "catalyst" (if I may use that chemical term) of a dedicated teacher, usually from high school, who had fanned the flame. Certainly my own exposure to the big-name professors was limited and not at all as inspirational as that of my secondary school teachers.

If you want to foster more chemists, start early.

Robert M. Coquillette
Lexington, Mass.