One of Antibiotics pioneer Ernst Boris Chain's (1906–1979) lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which he concluded was a “very feeble attempt” to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, “mainly of morphological and anatomical nature,” that “it can hardly be called a theory.”

This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time.

A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was “entirely a consequence of chance mutations” was a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.”

These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.

Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism. Chain’s eldest son, Benjamin, added: “There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection—he disliked theorieswhen they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view.”
 

Scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and...
may be even turned upside down by the discovery
of one single new fact.... This has happened time
and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to the biological field
 

Another reason he did not consider evolution a scientific theory was because it is obvious that “living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.” Chain recognized that the problem was not the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest, and that mutations do produce some variety: There is no doubt that such variants do arise in nature and that their emergence can and does make some limited contribution towards the evolution of species. The open question is the quantitative extent and significance of this contribution.

He added that evolution willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he is studies different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species.”

He was especially aware of how the research in his own field pointed to problems with evolution. In particular, Chain noted our modern knowledge of the genetic code and that its function in transmitting genetic information seems quite incompatible with classical Darwinian ideas of evolution.

Another concern about evolution that Chain expressed was evolution’s moral implications. In a 1972 speech he presented in London, he stated: It is easy to draw analogies between the behavior of apes and man, and draw conclusions from the behavior of birds and fishes on human ethical behavior, but ...this fact does not allow the development of ethical guidelines for human behavior. All attempts to do this...suffer from the failure to take into account the all important fact of man’s capability to think and to be able to control his passions, and are therefore doomed to failure.

Chain did not accept some scientists’ estimation that “religious belief” did not deserve serious consideration, countering that scientific theories themselves are ephemeral.

In a lecture which Crick, who, together with Watson and Wilkins, discovered the bihelical structure of DNA, gave a couple of years ago to students at University College...he said...that it was ridiculous to base serious decisions on religious belief. This seems to me a very sweeping and dogmatic conclusion...scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and, may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact.This has happened time and again even in the exactest of sciences, physics and astronomy, and applies even more so to biological field, where the concepts and theories are much less securely founded than in physics and are much more liable to be overthrown at a moment’s notice.

One might dismiss Chain’s view on Darwinism as simply a result of his faith, but Clark stresses that how “directly such views were linked to his religious beliefs is open to endless argument.” Chain’s eldest son wrote that his father’s concerns about evolution were not based on religion, but rather on science. Chain, though, made it clear that he was very concerned about the effect of Darwinism on human behavior.

Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories...must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve....a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach—which, by the way, is neither new nor original—does not really lead us very far.... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.
(© 2008 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. http://icr.org)
 

This page is updated on January 9, 2009