Here in South Carolina, the Education Oversight Committee is currently reviewing science standards and is entertaining the (to some) revolutionary idea that students should not only be taught the usual evolutionary theory but should also be introduced to scientific evidence that challenges it. As expected, there has been a barrage of criticism. This is caving in to the intelligent design movement, or worse still, to the Biblical creationists and these ideas have no place in a science classroom. So goes the by now outworn dirge of the evolutionary élite. Evolution is science. Anything else is not.
Enter Professor Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Penn State University. In January 2006, Professor Skell wrote to the Education Oversight Committee “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.” The Professor can hardly be put down as a Fundamentalist, for he is not. He does not write as a Biblical creationist. He holds that evolution is “an important theory, and students need to know about it.” Then he proceeds: “But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory, and students need to know about these as well.” Skell avers that many of these criticisms are well known to scientists and then drops this bombshell: “I have found that many 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.” This is strong stuff, but the Professor has not finished: “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 critical analysis 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.”
Now let this sink in. Skell charges that scientists who admit to their peers that there are difficulties with their pet theory refuse to let the public know of such concerns. The obvious question is, “Why?” And the equally obvious answer is, “Because evolutionists know well that every evidence against random, undirected mutation is an argument for intelligent design, which brings us back inexorably to the reality of a Creator—and that is what evolutionists are desperately trying to escape.”
But escape from God is impossible. He is and not all the vain theorizing in the world can change that. Evolution is a theory whose time has come and gone, a secular religious dogma that would-be atheists espoused to free them from the fear of God. Their hysterical protests against every new exposure of the bankruptcy of their system shows how unsuccessful they have been, for evidently they are still haunted by a fear of God.
As expected, evolutionists have mounted a virulent assault on Professor Skell’s scientific credibility. They admit that he is an expert in chemistry and biochemistry but assert that he has zero knowledge of biology. On the face of it the criticism is self-contradictory, but even if it were true, it would not lessen the force of his argument. However, just for good measure we’ll return to this subject tomorrow, God willing, and cite someone whose credentials in biological science cannot be questioned—and whose work underscores the necessity to realize that the old evolutionary ideas just don’t measure up to the findings of modern investigation.