http://explorezone.com/archives/99_08/30_opinion_kansas.htm.
Behe was asked to write a reply. They just put up the reply today at
http://explorezone.com/archives/99_09/07_opinion_kansas_behe.htm.
Editor's note:
Michael J. Behe is a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh
University and the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution. He wrote this opinion for explorezone.com in response to A
serious misstep in the education of our youth, written by Bruce Alberts,
president of the National Academy of Sciences, and published on 08.30.99.
It's remarkable that the reason for the controversy over teaching
evolution, which erupted most recently in Kansas, continues to elude
leaders of the scientific community. Typically bodies such as the National
Academy of Sciences try to frame the issue as biblical literalism versus
science, and then patronizingly point to religious denominations that
accept Darwinian evolution, as if inviting members of the "wrong" churches
to switch.
It is not the business of science organizations, however, to dispense
religious advice. Rather, their sole obligation is to give an unbiased
assessment of the evidence. Their dismal failure to do so-and the suspicion
it engenders-is the main reason that the evolution controversy festers.
A blatant example of slanted science can be seen in the booklet Science and
Creationism published this year by the National Academy of Sciences
specifically to address the controversy. In a section discussing the
profound problem of the origin of life, which has stymied determined
investigators for a very long time, the Academy casually comments, "For
those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer
whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving
nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many
pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells."
That condescending attitude is more worthy of a political spin doctor than
a scientist. The comments mislead the public by focusing on the attitudes
of investigators rather than on results. They seek to shut off discussion
on a wide-open question and steer schoolchildren into presuming that the
origin of life was a completely natural process. Science has no evidence
that it was a natural process, and should not pretend otherwise. The public
is not stupid, and such ham-handed indoctrination will only make people
suspect that scientists are trying to fool them in other areas too.
Another misleading strategy is to blur the difference between trivial
change and profound innovation. For example, a review issue of the journal
Cell, introduced by president of the National Academy of Sciences Bruce
Alberts, was devoted to the enormously intricate "Macromolecular Machines"
typical of the startling, unexplained complexity at the foundation of life.
Yet in an editorial on a 1996 evolution controversy in Colorado, President
Alberts said nothing of such difficult evolutionary challenges. Instead he
suggested that those who question evolution should read the popular book
The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.
Although fascinating, the book deals with very minor changes; it offers no
insight into how Darwinian processes could produce either a finch, a
macromolecular machine, or anything fundamentally new. However, all sides
of the controversy acknowledge small evolutionary changes. The point in
dispute is whether natural selection can produce major innovations. If
prominent scientists pretend otherwise, and treat the public as ingenues
incapable of making distinctions, then they should not be surprised that
their pronouncements are taken with a lot of salt.
The cause of the controversy escapes them because many (but far from all)
scientists presume that every event, present and past, simply has to have a
completely natural explanation. They are welcome to personally think so.
Nonetheless, that is a philosophical assumption, not palpable, scientific
data. Furthermore, it is a rather parochial attitude, mostly confined to
scientific circles, which is rejected by the great majority of Americans.
It is not right to foist that viewpoint onto other people's children.
Mistaking one's own assumptions for the way things really are is a fairly
common error. With a bit of effort, however, hard data can usually be
separated from debatable assumptions. If the leaders of science want to
diminish protests and controversy such as seen in Kansas, they should begin
by making that effort.
Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, is
author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.