Medical professor questions evolution

For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share a common biological origin.

But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, or ID.

In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too closed-minded to evaluate — let alone accept — the scientific evidence for ID.

“A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they arise outside the box of naturalism,” said Marshall, an MU professor of medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology and also the associate director of education at the School of Medicine. “There’s no reason we can’t at least look for evidence. But one of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don’t publish intelligent design material.”

Marshall said his lecture, “Intelligent Design: Is it Religion or Science?,” will question the origin of the first living cell and raise what he called problems with the fossil record, which scientists have used to understand how species evolved.

Sponsored by the Christian Medical and Dental Students Association, Marshall’s lecture comes just a few months after the Kansas Board of Education repealed teaching guidelines that included language suggesting many evolutionary concepts have never been proven and were, in fact, being challenged by new research. The credibility of ID was also dealt a blow in December 2005 in a case involving the Dover, Pa., school district. John E. Jones III, U.S. District Court judge, ruled that teaching intelligent design in public schools violates the First Amendment because it promotes religious belief in creationism.

Jones wrote that ID “is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.”

Marshall said teachers should have the right to discuss both Darwinian evolution and intelligent design in the classroom. However, he said, teaching ID should not be required until it becomes better established in the scientific community.

But for Kenny Duzan, the president of Show-Me Science Alliance, which promotes the teaching of science, ID has no place in the public school curriculum.

“It’s a shame that I and others have to waste time trying to prevent them from putting this in the schools,” Duzan said. “Where do we draw the line? Are we gonna teach about fairies and aliens and alien abductions?”

Will Morris, president of the local chapter of Brights, an international naturalist movement whose members reject belief in the supernatural, said no one has ever made the scientific case for ID.

“If it is really a scientific theory, they should be able to get articles peer-reviewed and published,” he said. “They don’t do that. Rather, they go through political systems.”

Marshall said it is difficult to publish articles on intelligent design because mainstream science’s opposition to the theory is so strong. Indeed, the National Center for Science Education, The National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are just a few of the organizations that reject ID.

Richard Schwartz, associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in 2005 that intelligent design is “a medieval theological position that is based on faith, not logic, and certainly not science.”

While his conversion to Christianity explains his skepticism of evolution, Marshall said that belief in intelligent design does not necessarily require adherence to a religious doctrine. And, despite the setbacks in court and the skepticism of an overwhelming majority of scientists, the intelligent design debate isn’t going away anytime soon, Marshall said. Many states are considering legislation that would require schools to teach that Darwinian evolution is just one of the theories on the origins of the earth, he said.

“In the end, we have to ask: Has Judge Jones really given us the final answer on whether ID is science?” Marshall said. “I think it is safe to say that his ruling won’t be the last word on the ID.”