This page contains a brief three-fold comment and signatures of scientists who support it. These scientists argue that special evolution occurs—including natural selection and certain modes of speciation—but that general evolution is hypothetical (see definitions by Kerkut1). Some of these scientists work in the basic disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology. Others work in the applied disciplines of geology, medicine, agriculture, and engineering. All have significant training in biological and/or biochemical sciences and are capable of evaluating arguments related to this issue.

We the undersigned support the following comment:

Special evolution1 involves natural selection and speciation within limits of a given gene pool. Special evolution can be demonstrated by both field and laboratory research and should be regarded as factual.

General evolution1 suggests that all organisms—extant and extinct—arose from a simple, common ancestor and are the result of small, gradual genetic changes over time. General evolution is a hypothetical extrapolation from special evolution and should be regarded as a theoretical model, since it cannot be tested directly in the laboratory or field. We are not convinced that general evolution, including the extrapolation itself as well as its underlying assumptions, provides an adequate scientific explanation for the origin and diversity of all known forms of life.

Chemical evolution (similar to abiogenesis) is the self-organization of life from non-living elemental precursors. Chemical evolution has never been demonstrated, and its proposed mechanisms remain conjectural. Chemical evolution becomes a philosophical position when it assumes that the mere presence of natural mechanisms necessarily precludes intelligence.

Finally, the scientists named below were “self-assembled.”  They have no organization, nor are they collectively affiliated with any institute or movement.  They have no common view on politics, religion, or even science policy.  Importantly, these scientists are not interested in scientific activism or debates, whether the debates are personal or public. They have signed this comment to inform the public that there is significant doubt among trained scientists regarding the claims of chemical and general evolution. The public has been given the false impression that both chemical evolution and general evolution are undisputed by working scientists and that only the details of biological mechanisms are now debated.

Scientists’ names (in alpha order), their credentials, and/or their current positions are listed below. If an asterisk appears with the name, that scientist will eventually offer an elaboration of the above comment. Individual websites can be located via an Internet search; this web page does not contain links or function as a science weblog.

Steven Barnes
PhD Chemistry, University of California-San Diego
Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry,
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Todd Bridges
BA Biology, California State University, Fresno
MA Biology, California State University, Fresno
PhD Biological Oceanography, North Carolina State University

Durell C. Dobbins
BS/BS Biology and Chemistry, University of North Alabama
MS Environmental Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
PhD Microbial Ecology, University of North Carolina

David Eakin
BA Biology, University of Louisville
MS Biology, University of Louisville
PhD Botany, University of Florida
Associate Professor, Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University

John Fritz
PhD Agronomy, University of Illinois
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University

Daniel Ginting
BS Soil Science, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
MS Soil Science, North Dakota State University
PhD Soil Science, University of Minnesota

Stephen Hobson
PhD Chemistry, University of California, Irvine

Ben Holt
BS Chemistry, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
MD, University of Tennessee-Memphis

Monty Kerley
PhD Animal Sciences, University of Illinois
Professor Emeritus, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri

David Livingston
BS Crop Science, Colorado State University
MS Plant Breeding, Michigan State University
PhD Plant Breeding and Plant Physiology, Michigan State University
Associate Professor, North Carolina State University

Eric Midboe
BS Biochemistry, University of Missouri
PhD Molecular Biology, University of Wyoming

Matthew Moore
BS Biology, Arkansas State University
MS Biology, Arkansas State University
PhD Biology, University of Mississippi

Alan Proia
BA Biology, The Johns Hopkins University
PhD Biochemistry, The Rockefeller University
MD, Cornell University Medical College
Professor, Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center

James Perkins
DVM Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis

Robert Perkins
BS Biomedical Science, Texas A&M University
DVM Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University

Craig Roberts
PhD Agronomy (PhD minor Biochemistry), University of Arkansas
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri

Mark Rochat
DVM Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University
Professor, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University

Frank Setzler
BS Biology, University of Houston
DO, University of North Texas Health Science Center, College of Osteopathic Medicine

C. Gerald Van Dyke
PhD Plant Pathology, University of Illinois
Professor, Department of Botany, North Carolina State University

Glenn Wilson
BS Crop Science, Louisiana State University
MS Soil Physics, Louisiana State University
PhD Soil Physics, University of Arkansas

Lawson Winton
BS Forestry, University of California, Berkeley
MS Forestry, University of California, Berkeley
PhD Forestry (minor Botany and Genetics), University of Minnesota

Jerry Workman
BA Natural Sciences, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota
MA Biological Sciences and Genetics, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota
PhD Biological Chemistry, Columbia Pacific University
CSEP and CED, Columbia University

1 “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the 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. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” Kerkut, G.A. 1960. Implications of Evolution. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford. (Professor Kerkut published this landmark book as part of the International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology. At the time, Kerkut was General Editor of the Zoology Division.)

This comment was written by David Eakin, Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, and Craig Roberts, Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri.

Revised: August 8, 2006