An Interview with Dr. Jonathan Wells
By Mario A. Lopez and Eduardo Arroyo
Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.
Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is also author of Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000).
Dr. Wells is currently working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on genes in biology and medicine.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
This interview was originally conducted by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa (www.ciencia-alternativa.org).
Ciencia Alternativa – (CA): Can you tell us a little about how you started to question the materialistic view of life’s origin and how you arrived at your current position with ID?
Jonathan Wells – (JW): As a college undergraduate in the 1960s I was a Darwinist and a leftist, but after Marxist agitators staged violent demonstrations in Berkeley in 1969-1970 I became disillusioned with the Left and headed for the hills. I built a cabin in the mountains of Northern California, where I was struck by the design in nature all around me. I began to question Darwinism, read the Bible, and pray. In 1978 entered a Yale Ph.D. program in theology, where I did research on the 19th century Darwinian controversies. I learned that the central theological issue in those controversies was design: According to the Christian tradition human beings are created in the image of God – by design – but according to Darwinism we are accidental by-products of unguided material processes. After receiving my Yale Ph.D. I worked for two years before going back to graduate school in 1989 to get a second Ph.D., this time in biology at Berkeley. I soon learned that the scientific evidence for Darwinism was nowhere near as strong as I had been led to believe. In 1991 I met Phillip E. Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who had just written Darwin On Trial, and through him I met other leaders of the new intelligent design (ID) movement.
It’s important to understand what ID is and isn’t. According to intelligent design theory, we can infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by unguided processes. ID is not a substitute for ignorance: If we don’t know the cause of something, that does not mean it was designed. We make design inferences on the basis of evidence; the more evidence we have, the more reliable our design inferences are. Since ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines, it is not biblical creationism. Intelligent design makes no claims about biblical chronology, and it does not tell us the identity of the designer. Although most proponents of ID believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, they acknowledge that this belief goes beyond the scientific evidence. ID restricts itself to a simple question: Does the evidence point to design in nature? The answer to this question – whether yes or no – carries implications for religious belief; but the question can be asked and answered apart from those implications.
CA: Is it your opinion that neo-Darwinism has seriously constrained research progress? If so, can you give an example of how ID theory has been heuristically fruitful in your own work?
JW: Let’s first be clear about what Darwinism is. It is not just evolution. Evolution is a broad term that can mean simply change over time, or changes within existing species – neither of which is the least bit controversial. But Darwin didn’t write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species. According to his theory, all living things descended from a common ancestor by unguided material processes such as random variation and natural selection. When I look at the actual evidence for this grand claim, I find it to be surprisingly thin. For example, the anatomical and molecular evidence is not consistent with Darwin’s branching-tree picture of how living things are related to each other. A tree pattern does not emerge from the evidence, but must be imposed on it a priori. Furthermore, the evidence does not support Darwin’s claim for the creative power of natural selection. Everything we know about mutation and selection suggests that they can modify living things only in very minor ways. There are no confirmed reports that Darwin’s mechanism has produced a new species, much less new organs or body plans.
So Darwinism doesn’t fit the evidence. It is empirically false, and as a false theory it has misled scientific research. One example is “junk DNA.” When biologists in the 1970s discovered that most of the human genome does not code for proteins, Darwinists proclaimed the majority of our DNA to be garbage accumulated in the course of evolution. As a result, researchers neglected most of our DNA for decades. Now it is becoming clear that this so-called “junk DNA” is not junk at all; instead, it is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of our cells. If biologists in the 1970s had approached the human genome as a product of intelligent design rather than Darwinian evolution, genome research might be decades ahead of where it is now.
In my own work, I have used ID to guide the formulation of testable hypotheses about several aspects of living cells that have been neglected with a Darwinian framework. One example is centrioles, organelles in animal cells that look like tiny turbines. They come in pairs, with one member of the pair oriented at a right angle to the other. Although they participate in cell division, their function remains mysterious. Since they contain no DNA they have attracted comparatively little interest from Darwinists, who regard DNA as the master molecule in evolution. From a design perspective, however, it is unlikely that such intricate structures would be accidental by-products of unguided processes. Starting from an intelligent design perspective, I assumed that centrioles look like turbines because they ARE turbines, and by applying engineering principles I formulated a new hypothesis about centriole function. Of course, the hypothesis must be tested experimentally, but if it turns out to be true it could have implications for the cause of cancer.
CA: Has your work on centrioles been controversial? If so, why?
JW: Yes, it has been very controversial. Of course, any significantly new hypothesis tends to meet with opposition, but mine has been especially controversial because of its connection to intelligent design. One science journal was about to publish it until the editor asked whether I was “the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame;” after that I had to find another journal. In 2005 I presented the hypothesis at an annual meeting of my professional society, where I was ridiculed for doing so. Since then Darwinists have relied mainly on their favorite tactic, character assassination – though the only way to settle the matter scientifically is with experimental tests, which I am presently pursuing. My published hypothesis is now available online at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2680
CA: In the US, you have faced some opposition from Alan Gishlick and the National Center for Science Education concerning your work in Icons. Would you say that they have posed formidable challenges?
JW: No. Like other Darwinists, those at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) exaggerate and misrepresent the scientific evidence, and they ultimately rely on personal attacks. None of the NCSE’s criticisms of my book Icons of Evolution stand up under close examination, and I have not seen the need to modify or retract anything I wrote. For my response to published reviews of the book, see “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution,” available online at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180
CA: Why are scientists so reluctant in simply accepting that much of what is being taught in schools is outdated and often wrong?
JW: That’s difficult to say. Many scientists (perhaps the majority) simply can’t be bothered; they just want to be left alone to do their research. But some are ideologically committed to defending Darwinism and they want to hold onto their cultural power, even if it means denying the truth. Unfortunately, Darwinists hold so much power in the sciences right now that anyone who dares to speak out about textbook falsehoods or otherwise criticize the reigning orthodoxy – at least in the U.S. – risks losing his or her career. This is now happening with alarming frequency, as the forthcoming movie “Expelled” shows. See the movie’s trailer online at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
CA: How has your work influenced the way textbooks are currently written?
JW: Some textbooks have removed the more egregious icons in recent editions. For example, few recent textbooks mention the now-discredited peppered moth story, and most have taken out Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings. But the standard biology textbooks are still committed to promoting Darwinism, so many continue to exaggerate or misrepresent evidence from the fossil record, anatomical similarities, molecular comparisons, the Galápagos finches, and antibiotic resistance.
CA: How is your work being viewed in other countries? Are you getting the same sort of opposition as you have here in the U.S.?
JW: Opposition to me (and to intelligent design in general) has been strongest in the U.S. In some parts of Europe and Asia, criticism of Darwinism – and interest in intelligent design – is more widespread than it is in the U.S. Elite American scientists tend to be rather arrogant, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are among the last to acknowledge the evidence against Darwinism and for intelligent design.
CA: It has been some time since the original publication of Icons of Evolution; is there anything in the works that might identify the more current “icons” of Darwinism (i.e. gene duplication, junk DNA, chromosomal fusion, the Tiktaalik fossil, etc.)?
JW: Because Darwinism is really materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science, its adherents ignore counterevidence and continue to churn out new icons. Of course we can criticize the new icons and show that the evidence does not support them, but only when people see Darwinism for what it really is will the icons loose their mesmerizing power.
CA: Your last project with Dr. Dembski, The Design of Life, is supposed to be the definitive volume on intelligent design. What do you anticipate from your critics?
JW: I wouldn’t call our book “the definitive volume on intelligent design” (though I’m flattered by your suggestion) – just a very useful and readable summary of what we know so far. Since intelligent design is still in its infancy, however, the best is yet to come. As for critics: I expect more of the same, especially character assassination. But I’m confident the truth will eventually prevail. For more information about the book, go to http://www.thedesignoflife.net