False Front

  When it comes to the theory of evolution, scientists try hard to present a united front to the public. They're determined to persuade us that evolution is an established fact. But if you dig through the professional writings of these same scientists, you see the "united front" turning into a false front. Take the recent announcement by the National Academy of Sciences, which made front-page news around the country. The academy announced that the theory of evolution is "the only plausible scientific explanation" for the complexity of life. Academy president Bruce Alberts said scientists are concerned that children are not receiving enough exposure to evolutionary theory. They lay the blame on religious bullies who are, Alberts said, "determined to eliminate evolution as a part of the science curriculum." To deal with this problem, the academy has issued a new guidebook, called Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. It's intended to help teachers teach evolution and deal with pesky parents who don't accept Darwinism. As Alberts puts it, the "scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming." But is it really? What are these same scientists saying in their academic writings intended only for the eyes of fellow scientists? Do their private statements line up with their public utterances? Let's examine the writings of Bruce Alberts himself and find out. Last February the leading biology journal, called Cell, published a special issue on "Macromolecular Machines." These are incredibly complex proteins that all cells use to process information, build molecules, and move substances back and forth across their membranes. Alberts introduced this issue with an article titled "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines." As it turns out, Alberts says, "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we… had ever considered [30 years ago]. The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." Alberts adds, "These protein assemblies contain highly coordinating moving parts." He calls these protein assemblies "enormously complex," and he goes on to compare them to "machines invented by humans." Does that sound like undirected evolution by natural selection? Not to me. It sounds like creation by Intelligent Design. Alberts is putting up a brave front to the public by insisting that evolution is the only scientifically valid theory we can teach to explain life's origins. But if you look at his own writings—intended for his peers—he shows how complex the cell really is, and how similar to machines designed by human ingenuity. Which theory do the data really support? It's easy to accept evolution if you believe, as scientists once did, that the cell is little more than a blob of jelly. But we now know cells to be incredibly complex—like tiny, automated factories. Parents and schools don't have to knuckle under to pressure from the National Academy of Scientists. Be prepared to show, from the writings of scientists themselves, that the data fit better with the theory of Intelligent Design. And let your own kids know that the so-called "united front" by scientists is really a false front: It's just an illusion.

04/16/98