The biological world has become accustomed to periodic challenges to the theory of evolution from the pen of theologians or scientists who still hold to the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. These "extremists" or "cranks" are usually considered to be either "ignorant of the facts" or to have "emotional biases and preconceptions strong enough to make them reject even completely established scientific findings" (Dobzhansky). Many of these efforts now cause hardly a ripple in the flood of scientific literature coming daily from our presses. To a large percentage of scientists and laymen evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact.
The book of Kerkut is different; it is a rare volume. Not rare because it raises serious questions as to the validity of the basic assumptions upon which the general theory of evolution is founded, but rare because it is done by a scientist who has no alternative theory to offer. Although sympathetic with the theory, he clearly states that the evidence which supports evolution is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. He cannot therefore, be considered to be biased in his evaluation. Kerkut is well known in the fields of invertebrate zoology and physiology and is an editor of biological works of merit (Cambridge University Press, Pergamon Press).
The particular truths that Kerkut points out are not new, but they are effectively supported with recent data. Simply stated, we have no good evidence as to when and how life arose from nonliving matter [except Creation, which he does not suggest]. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence as to how the various major groups of animals (phyla) are interrelated; that is, whether there is actually any evolutionary sequence in the animal kingdom.
The author makes a clear distinction between the minor changes that may occasionally be observed to give rise to a new species within the same basic group and the more fundamental sort of change that would be required to bridge the gaps between groups. The former he refers to as the "special theory of evolution," and he allows that these can be demonstrated in certain cases. Actually most of the vast literature on evolution and all of the demonstrable evidence is regarding limited variations of this sort, changes that any creationist will grant as having occurred since the Creation.
"On the other hand," he points out, "there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." This substantiates just what conservative Creationists have maintained.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of Kerkut is the vivid portrayal of how the theological dogma of the early nineteenth century is being imperceptibly replaced by a scientific dogma in the twentieth. "But what is worse, the present-day student claims to be different from his predecessor in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogma."—Page 3.
"Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they come to the study of the subject in more detail, they have in their minds several half truths and misconceptions which end to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation. . . .
"It would seem a good principle to encourage the study of 'scientific heresies.' There is always the danger that a reader might be seduced by one of these heresies, but the danger is neither as great nor as serious as the danger of having scientists brought up in a type of mental strait-jacket or of taking them so quickly through a subject that they have no time to analyse and digest the material they have 'studied.' "—Pages 156, 157.
In reviewing this book, Dobzhansky (Science 133:752, 1961), of Columbia University, an international authority on genetics and evolution, acknowledges that Kerkut "argues, correctly of course," on the seven basic unproved assumptions of evolution. Dobzhansky's total commitment to evolution, however, makes it difficult for him to suppose that evolution is still not proved, even in spite of these shaky assumptions.
Bonner from Princeton, who is also on the editorial board of several of our better scientific journals (The American Scientist, The American Naturalist, and Growth), gives an excellent and favorable five-page review that deserves as careful study as the volume itself (American Scientist 49:2 [June, 1961], pp. 240-244). Typical statements are: "This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundation." Human enthusiasm often makes things difficult for scientific objectivity." "The message is that the great phylogenetic [evolutionary] schemes, no matter how delicious and tempting, must wait." Read the full review in the American Scientist.
Although Bonner favors evolution, statements from one of his own recent books show that he recognizes serious problems for the theory:
"The cell is really such an astoundingly clever unit that when we think of it from the point of view of evolution it seems easier to imagine a single cell evolving into complex animals and plants than it does to imagine a group of chemical substances evolving into a cell. It is very likely that the first step was more difficult, but unfortunately we have no way of checking the matter, for the events leading to a cell have certainly left no record that we can detect on the surface of the earth. The study of early evolution really amounts to educated guesswork."—The Ideas of Biology, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), p. 18.
In summary, I think it is fair to say that Kerkut's book is one of the most penetrating studies on the limitations of evolution in recent decades. Although the body of the book is semitechnical, the early and latter parts may be understood by anyone, and this volume is highly recommended to our ministers for use with students, scientists, and laymen.
R. M. RITLAND
