Darwinian Theory

As one of the evolutionary biologists quoted in a recent article (R. Lewis, The Scientist, May 12, 1997, page 13), I must challenge Michael Behe's response (M. Behe, The Scientist, June 9, 1997, page 10) that scientists should confess to being "substantially in the dark" about the cause of evolution. Teaching evolution is already hard enough without feigning ignorance about a fundamental principle of life. Behe criticizes Lewis for "conflating different concepts under the single term of 'evolu

David King
Jul 20, 1997

As one of the evolutionary biologists quoted in a recent article (R. Lewis, The Scientist, May 12, 1997, page 13), I must challenge Michael Behe's response (M. Behe, The Scientist, June 9, 1997, page 10) that scientists should confess to being "substantially in the dark" about the cause of evolution. Teaching evolution is already hard enough without feigning ignorance about a fundamental principle of life.

Behe criticizes Lewis for "conflating different concepts under the single term of 'evolution.'" But Behe's attempt to deflate the Darwinian mechanism as "the least-supported" concept of evolution only demonstrates an inadequate grasp of what a theory is. Behe believes that a single fossil Tyrannosaur "conclusively proves" the occurrence of change over time, while modern experiments give "no reason" for thinking that variation and selection are "capable of building marvels." But unlike the circumstantial evidence and chain of inference that support descent with...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?