Lies from your College Biology Class

[Note to reader: this series of articles is intended to expose the false science presented in a popular college biology textbook. When complete, this series will be compiled into a free ebook available on this website.]

Introduction

Every college student is generally required to complete courses in the sciences, and many will take a class in biology. A widely used college biology textbook is What is Life? by Jay Phelan.¹⁾Jay Phelan, What is Life?: A Guide to Biology (Third Edition), W.H. Freeman & Company, New York, NY: 2015. Hereafter cited as WIL. In a classroom setting, this book may appear authoritative—especially when reinforced by a professor’s lectures. However, it contains numerous unproven assumptions, scientific inaccuracies, and misleading claims presented as though they were established fact.

For instance, Phelan asserts, “Darwin’s theory has proven to be among the most important and enduring contributions in all of science.”²⁾WIL, p. 324. Yet this raises a critical question: What practical contribution has the idea of evolution actually made to the world? Which invention, medicine, or technology could not exist without the philosophical framework of evolution?

Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, who earned a B.S. and Ph.D. in botany from the University of Wales, as well as an M.S. in speech and language pathology from the University of London, testified:

I studied the nature of DNA, genes, and chromosomes and went on to look at gene expression in individuals and populations and the transfer of genetic information to subsequent generations. We learned to classify plants by traditional methods and modern techniques. The professor who lectured this last course commented that evolutionary theory had provided no new techniques or procedures for constructing classifications and that speculative attempts to produce phylogenetic trees and systems without much valid evidence actually retarded the progress of taxonomy (Heywood, 1967).³⁾Dr. Nancy Darrall, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (ed. John F. Ashton), Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 2005), p. 184

In other words, the assumption of universal evolutionary relationships has often hindered, rather than advanced, scientific progress.

Phelan also claims, “There have been no credible challenges to the basic principles of evolution and how it proceeds.”⁴⁾WIL, p. 358. But this immediately invites further inquiry: What does he consider “credible”? Is every author who critiques evolution automatically dismissed as lacking credibility, simply because they dissent? Has Phelan seriously engaged with dissenting scholarship? How is he defining “the basic principles of evolution”? These issues will be examined later in this series. For now, it is sufficient to observe that many modern scientists—both religious and non-religious—reject the so-called “basic principles” of Darwinian evolution.

For example, the Discovery Institute has published A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a statement signed by over 1,000 scientists who affirm:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.⁵⁾accessible at https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ 

Additionally, Dr. Jerry Bergman—who holds nine degrees (including two Ph.D.s) and has authored over 700 publications—has compiled a list of more than 3,000 scientists skeptical of Darwinism. His Darwin Skeptics: A Select List of Science Academics, Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism explains:

The sources for the members of this list include primarily persons of my acquaintance, from their involvement in creationist or Darwin Doubter organizations, or books that they have written. The list is very incomplete, and I apologize for the many omissions. I estimate that, if I had the time and resources, I could easily complete a list of over 10,000 names….

On my public list, I have close to 3,000 names, including about a dozen Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned that “outing” them could seriously damage their career. This is a valid concern. For this reason I have a private list with well over a 1,000 names.⁶⁾accessible at https://www.rae.org/essay-links/darwinskeptics/

Can such widespread dissent truly be brushed aside as offering “no credible challenges”? The more pressing question is whether Phelan himself provides any credible evidence for the basic principles he asserts as fact.

This book is written to expose such errors and to encourage critical thinking among students. Many accept the majority opinion simply because it appears to be the only legitimate position. Yet countless scientists have shifted their worldview after encountering evidence that conflicted with what they were taught in their academic training—especially on the subject of origins.⁷⁾See, for example: On the Seventh Day: Forty Scientists and Academics Explain Why They Believe in God, ed. John F. Ashton, Master Books, 2002; In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton, Master Books, 2005; Persuaded by the Evidence: True Stories of Faith, Science and the Power of the Creator, ed. Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman, Master Books, 2008.

A common misconception is that the creation–evolution debate pits religion against science. In reality, as philosopher of science Dr. Michael Ruse has acknowledged, it is better understood as a clash of competing religious worldviews. Ruse—one of the key witnesses in the 1981 Little Rock, Arkansas, trial over the constitutionality of teaching creation alongside evolution—initially rejected this idea. Yet after two decades of reflection, he conceded in a Canadian newspaper (May 13, 2000):

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.⁸⁾Michael Ruse, “How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics”, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000).

He later expanded this argument in his book Darwinism as Religion (2017).⁹⁾Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Religion, Oxford University Press, New York, NY: 2017.

If we were to ask, “What is wrong with What Is Life?” the simplest answer would be that it is written from a strictly atheistic presupposition. This underlying bias is not neutral, nor is it representative of the convictions of many American students. Much of what the textbook presents as “science” is in fact circular reasoning, assuming from the outset that God does not exist and that only materialistic explanations are possible.

By contrast, Scripture offers a far different and more profound answer to the very question the textbook raises: What is life? The Apostle John writes,

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).