Jackson Wheat

July 13, 2015

The Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Myth: An Empirical
Study and Evaluation

The first thing I noticed about the article in the title was that it was
composed by a creationistimagine that. Young Earth creationists (YECs)
make up fewer than 0.1% of biologists, according to the Huffington Post (the
article is titled Over 40 Percent Of Americans Believe In Creationism, Survey
Says), but the fact that YECs are a tiny group of dissenting scientists who
reason using the Bible instead of science is what is more interesting. The
fact that those scientists dissent is unimportant, as science could not
advance without dissenting opinions, but the problem is that they dissent not
due to real world evidence but due to the Bible. Dr. Bergman claims in the
abstract that he investigated the usage of the word Darwinism in biology
classrooms and found that the word is rarely used. First, that is irrelevant;
Darwinism is synonymous with evolutionary biology, and I am pretty sure he
heard a variant of that phrase from his sources. Dr. Bergman then says, To
evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class
at the college where I teach [Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio] and
those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that
Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that
of another researcher and came to the same conclusion.
I then looked up Dr. Bergmans background, according to Creation.com
(that should give him a good reputation), he has taught biology, genetics,
chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology. That is
simply impressive, so I decided to look up the colleges where he studied,
also according to Creation.com: Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State
University in Detroit, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State
University. Although I find his expertise in all of those subjects to be
questionable, as most doctors only have expertise in one field, I am
impressed that he has taught so much in those biological fields. That long
list of abilities begs the question, Why does he not publish peer-reviewed

articles for the scientific community? Another question that might be asked
is, Why is all of his work only available on creationist websites? I think he
could make some serious discoveries with all those degrees, but he seems to
be afraid of the scientific community. Why is that?
Back to his disagreement with the word Darwinism: I hardly ever use
the word, and I am an advocate of evolutionary biology. Is the article saying
that one can only support evolution if one uses the word Darwinism? Instead
of Darwinism, I use evolutionary biology, biologic evolution, or just evolution;
does that mean I disagree with evolution or Darwinism? No.
Then Dr. Bergman uses a Dawkins quote, a rather long one, which I will
summarize: biology makes sense only in light of evolution. This is true, and
I know from experience. When I was younger, I had an intense love of
dinosaurs, and I realized that certain dinosaurs only appeared in certain time
periods. We never find strata where an Apatosaurus and Tyrannosaurus or
Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus are together. Why is that? Contrary to what
YECs preach, all these dinosaurs are found separately because they did not
live in the same time period. They did not live together in the Garden of
Eden or on Noahs ark; there is no evidence to suggest those YEC claims are
true. Also, when I was in fifth grade, I had a fantastic science teacher who
taught biology without mentioning evolution or Darwinism, which was
probably due to the fact that I went to a Louisiana public elementary school
called Eden Gardens. What I noticed after our biology chapterwhereupon
we were taught about basic zoology, botany, and human anatomywas that
all those parts were somehow connected. There was an underlying theme to
biology, bear in mind that I concluded this between fifth and sixth grade,
which I found out later is known as evolution. Finding that word made me
realize why all those things fit together, but the word also helped me find the
link between paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, comparative
anatomy, and others.
Dr. Bergman then points to a bad analogy as evidence against
evolution, To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental
generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an
attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether.
Since scientists have discovered that the ether does not exist, which is
credited to science (not religion), that must mean evolution is wrong too. If
the best argument against evolution is a bad analogy, then I must that is
truly unimpressive.

Dr. Bergman follows this with goal-post shifting, a typical creationist

tactic. He first says that evolution is rarely mentioned by scientists, which is
hard to believe, and then he quotes Dr. Conrad E. Johanson as saying
scientists rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological
or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and
research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins,
macroevolution, etc. Macroevolution is not just evolution; it is evolution
over a long period of time. Second, natural selection is one of the
undisputed components of evolutionalong with mutations and speciation.
Third, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life because evolution
is simply going from organism A to organism B. Fourth, after scrolling
through several pages of Google results, I have found that this quotation only
appears on creationist websites. I cannot find the original source of this
quoteimagine that. This is just a creationist quote-mine.
Following this, Dr. Bergman says some scientists were engaged in
non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.
Ah, the YEC tactic of dividing science into two parts finally kicks in. The first
question is, What is historical biology, let alone non-historical? How does a
scientist decide what part of biology is historical or its counterpart called
observational? I have seen neither of these terms in biology textbooks nor
would I expect to; they are solely creationist terms, not scientific terms.
Then Dr. Bergman discusses a Dr. Tony Jelsma who is a doctor of biochemistry.
Apparently, Dr. Jelsma almost never studied evolution while earning his biochemistry degree,
which must suggest that evolution is irrelevant to biochemistry. A quick Google search of peerreviewed articles discussing biochemistry and evolution yielded dozens of results: Divergence
of function in the thioredoxin fold suprafamily: evidence for evolution of peroxiredoxins from a
thioredoxin-like ancestor, evolution, and Evidence that a major determinant for the
identity of a transfer RNA is conserved in evolution. So saying that biochemistry has nothing to
do with evolution is demonstrably fallacious.
Dr. Bergmans quote, Most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell
biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism, is rather troubling, and
I was beginning to wonder what he means by evolution. If he equated evolution or Darwinism to
macroevolution, then I am not particularly surprised to hear that it was not mentioned. Although,
having read a book on stem cell research, I found that the book had a chapter on the origin of
cells. That is rather odd if evolution has nothing to do with cell biology.
That last quote was rather troubling, but this next one is going to be a real horror, Even
those chapters labeled evolution often spend much time on non-evolution topics, such as basic
genetics, human development, population genetics, and similar areas. None of the anatomy and
physiology textbooks we have used ever mentioned evolution. The only reference to it in the
microbiology texts we have used is the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a
problem for intelligent design or even creationists. See Bergman, 2003). Wow, this is a mess of

problems. First, genetics and embryology are major components of evolution. Genetics reveals
that all organisms are connected through similar DNA, RNA, cellular bilayer, DNA polymerase,
etc. Second, embryology is another major advocate of evolutionshowing similar eggs among
reptiles, birds, and mammals. Mammal eggs have a vestigial yolk sac that is not vestigial in
reptiles because mammals evolved from reptiles, which is one way embryology aids evolution.
Third, Dr. Neil Shubin, the paleontologist who discovered Tiktaalik, would probably take issue
with the idea that evolution has nothing to say about human anatomy and physiology. Dr. Shubin
points out in the beginning of his book Your Inner Fish that all other animals have simpler
anatomic systems than humans. That is why he is a paleontologist teaching human anatomy and
physiology in college; less complex animals give us clues about ourselves. Fourth, Dr. Bergman
looks at direct observations of evolution among bacteria and says, That is not evolution. How
dishonest!
Dr. Bergman continues, Judging by these textbooks, Darwinism is often totally ignored
in most science classes. All I can ask for is a citation, which he does not provide. What
textbooks? What teachers? When I took biology in tenth grade, evolution was a central theme.
Evolution was also important in my eleventh grade anatomy and physiology class. Cosmic
evolution was even briefly discussed in my chemistry class, as in how elements on Earth
appeared. The next quote, And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory biology books
that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on
evolution? is a straight lie, as I have pointed out the occurrence of evolution in the biology
classes. I must also remind you that I go to school in Louisiana where creationism is the largest
ideology. If evolution is important to biology here, then it is certainly important to biology
elsewhere.
I find it odd that Dr. Bergman is so opposed to evolution, and yet he recommends a, by
all accounts, good book about evolution: Evolutionary Analysis. Amazons summary of the
book says, By presenting evolutionary biology as an ongoing research effort, this best-seller
aims to help readers think like scientists. The authors convey the excitement and logic of
evolutionary science by introducing principles through recent and classical studies, and by
emphasizing real-world applications. Did Dr. Bergman mean to recommend a book that
directly contradicts his argument about historical biology? I will just chalk it up to a Freudian
slip.
Another disturbing quote surfaces, Moore [a scientist] found that many of todays high
school teachers dont recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses,
apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore, 2004. p. 864).
The article where this quote is referenced is titled How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand
the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution? The introductory paragraph of the
article says, Courts throughout the United States have consistently supported the teaching of
evolution and have rejected the teaching of creationism in the science classes of public schools.
Although knowledge of these court decisions can help teachers resist pressures to spurn
evolution or to teach creationism, many teachers have a poor understanding of the legal issues
associated with the teaching of evolution and creationism. Incorporating these court decisions
into undergraduate courses, preservice training, and in-service workshops would educate and
support teachers who want to teach evolution, while helping them avoid costly and embarrassing
lawsuits. So teachers being bullied into not talking about evolution is why evolution was not
taught. The teachers did not avoid evolution because it was unsound but because they were
forced by dogmatic religious groups to abandon it.

Except in courses devoted to evolution, the subject was rarely covered in science classes
although it did come up occasionally in other classes (see Appendix II). I found that during my
biology/natural science education, which entailed over eight years of full-time college,
Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I would expect that the subject would appear in every other
biology course at some point, but as for science classes such as geology or physics, I would not
expect Darwinism to be discussed. Dr. Bergman points out again that Darwinism is not very
prevalent in medical research. For the most part, I do not think Darwinism would be a major
topic in medical research, so why does this matter? My mother, a nurse, never took a class on
evolution, and yet she tends to surgeries everyday. I do not think evolution is necessary to
understanding human surgery.
Then Dr. Bergman says, The message that Darwinists convey to the public is often very
different than what they recognize as true among themselves. Although they state to the public
that, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, most scientists can
conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas (Witham,
2002, p. 43). Looking into Larry Witham, I discovered that he is a creationist journalist, which
is unsurprising, and I pointed out earlier how creationists often skew the facts and quotes.
This paragraph displays a number of errors: Darwinists are loath to display publicly
their internal divisions. An exception is a challenge by mathematicians at Philadelphia's Wistar
Institute of Anatomy and Biology that drew evolutionists of some note. The result of the
conference was the mathematicians and the biologist agreed to disagree (Witham, 2002, p. 37).
In short, the mathematicians believed that, in contrast to the evolutionists, it seemed improbable
that the mere shuffling of genes could yield such combinations as a DNA molecule of the human
brain, or move through populations and produce dramatically new species (Witham, 2002, p.
37). The first problem is that Dr. Bergman displays the improbability fallacy; he thinks
improbability equates to impossibility. The problem with that argument is that anything is so
improbable that it is not worth considering, and yet it happens. If I have an improbable chance
of winning the lottery, then I will probably play. If the chance of me winning the lottery is
nonexistent, then I will not play. Second, why would Darwinists not want to argue over a point?
Knowledge only advances by people questioning what we already have, so scientists should
argue every part of biology. Third, this is implying that mathematicians and biologists are at
odds, which is odd considering such peer-reviewed articles as Mathematics is biology's next
microscope, only better; biology is mathematics' next physics, only better. The first sentence of
the previously named article is this: Although mathematics has long been intertwined with the
biological sciences, an explosive synergy between biology and mathematics seems poised to
enrich and extend both fields greatly in the coming decades.
The final paragraph before the conclusion states, The fact that presenting both sides may
convince many students to reject the Darwinist side is a major motivation for the almost fanatic
efforts by Darwinists to ensure that only one side of the controversy is taught. I, as well as
probably every other biologist or biology advocate, have seen both sides of the issue: science or
the Bible. The choice is fairly simple; with science we get electricity, refrigeration, and vaccines,
and with the Bible we get the Inquisition and Crusades.