This interview with Dr. Philip Skell was conducted in June 2005 by Tristan Abbey. Dr. Skell is an Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at Pennsylvania State University . He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences . Interview questions are in bold; responses are in standard text. The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the views of IDURC

1. What are your scientific qualifications?

Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor, Penn State U., member National Academy of Sciences, Engaged in pioneer work with antibiotics during WW II.

2. Do you believe in evolution (i.e., common descent of all life on Earth through random mutations and natural selection)?

Evaluating it as a scientist, I see very little scientific evidence supporting it; it is not an unreasonable speculation.

3. How has your work specifically in antibiotics affected your views on evolution?

Reflection on it many years later failed to reveal any occasion when historical biology was part of the considerations about how to proceed.

4. You have spoken about a “historical biology” being separate from an “experimental biology.” Could you please elaborate on the distinction?

Modern biology is engaged in examining the structures and functions of tissues from live organisms; it is the most prolific and important branch of all the sciences. Historical biology has only the minuscule fragments of our ancestors, fossils, for examination. They are stones, not tissues. The geologists provide a reasonable time line, but minuscule evidence about their function, zero evidence for the “transit” from one species to another. The claim for “mountains of evidence” is a disingenuous lie. The modern biology, demonstrably, makes no use of the historical biology; at times the historical is an encumbrance on the modern.

5. What are your thoughts on intelligent design? Are you moved at all by the evidence and arguments presented by ID theorists? Should it be taught in schools?

ID is a balance for rampant Darwinism. From a science point of view, neither should be taught in a science class. They are both best presented in a non-science class devoted to speculations on pre-history.

6. You recently wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education expressing support for teaching criticism of neo-Darwinism. What drove you to write this letter?

If Darwinism is to be taught, both its criticisms and the alternatives should be linked.

7. What are your thoughts on the cultural/political agenda of the Discovery Institute?

Important in two respects, one personal, the other science-related. For the latter, Darwinian thinking needs the balance of alternatives, preferably discussed in venues other than the experimental science ones. For the former, there are numerous social/political considerations currently driven by the materialist metaphysics that should be more balanced, especially as one considers the demographics of those beliefs in the US .

8. Do you have any advice for aspiring young scientists skeptical of neo-Darwinism?

If neo-Darwinism is defined to be identical with modern experimental biology there is no problem. The conflation of neo-Darwinism with the historical biology, and its frequent companion materialist philosophy, should be recognized and exposed for what it is, rather than disingenuously introduced as science.