Vertical Thought: From colleges to zoos and everywhere in between, it seems like scientists are pushing the theory of evolution. Are there any scientists who don't believe in evolution?

Dr. Steven Holladay: Sometimes it seems like everyone who works in scientific fields supports the theory of evolution. But they don't. In fact, 100 top scientists recently published "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism," publicly stating their skepticism about the theory of evolution and encouraging its careful examination. [See details at www.reviewevolution.com]

VT: Are these scientists considered reputable?

SH: Yes, if you consider biologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians and anthropologists from internationally recognized research institutions such as Yale, Princeton, MIT and even the University of California at Berkeley to be reputable. Lists like this make it clear that there are well-educated, rational thinkers who have serious reservations about evolution.

VT: Why do they question the theory?

SH: Ironically, it's advancements in science, like the study of DNA, that have caused scientists to question the theory that life was created by random forces. In fact, Dr. Antony Flew, a famous atheist and professor, recently reversed his long-held belief in evolution based on increased understanding of DNA as an information-carrying molecule. He now argues that an intelligent source had to be involved in the production of DNA. [See "DNA evidence prompts famous professor to renounce atheism"]

VT: What's so compelling about DNA?

SH: For a long time scientists haven't been able to explain how DNA is produced. The proteins needed to make DNA cannot be produced without using DNA. But DNA cannot be produced without these proteins. It's a chicken-or-egg scenario. And this is true of even the simplest single-cell organisms.

VT: How do evolutionists explain that?

SH: Evolutionists suggest that the very large proteins needed to assemble DNA may have first assembled themselves over extremely long time periods. But many scientists, including Dr. Michael Behe, a well-known biochemistry professor who formerly accepted evolution, agree that no available data support this belief. [See "What Do DNA Discoveries Mean for Evolution?"]

VT: So it's not very likely that the proteins could assemble themselves over time?

SH: Look at it this way—picture the earth as a lifeless planet strewn with boxes of car engine parts. Evolutionist logic argues that the random shaking of the earth's crust, over billions of years, correctly assembled at least one of these engines. According to their arguments, this explanation for the assembled engine must be true, because assembled engines obviously exist today.

VT: When you explain the likelihood like that, it's hard to believe.

SH: Yes. More and more rational scientists, who have devoted their careers to looking closely at the "engine"—DNA—have decided that no amount of "shaking"—random chemical reactions—could assemble the engine.

VT: Is that the only problem DNA presents to the theory of evolution?

SH: No. The discovery that DNA molecules carry a "language" that's totally independent of the molecule is an even greater hurdle. You see, DNA is more than just a set of chemical structures within a cell; the structures also contain information needed to construct complex proteins. Imagine this page is a DNA molecule and the words are the information. The magazine page is a vehicle for transmitting the concepts we're discussing, but the paper doesn't contain the concept itself.

VT: Is the information as sophisticated as the English language?

SH: Many actually describe the information in DNA molecules as a highly advanced language. In fact, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who obviously knows quite a bit about complex codes, describes the DNA code as similar to computer software programs, but much more advanced than anything human beings have developed. [See details at www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.09/hood_pr.html.]

VT: So how is that a problem for evolution?

SH: The code (or concept in our previous example) and the vehicle (or magazine page) that the code is being transferred in can't develop at the same time. The concept must be developed before it can be "printed out" on the page. There is no known process or chain reaction that makes information spontaneously transform into matter, according to Professor Werner Gitt, information systems expert and director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute.

VT: What if the process just hasn't been discovered at this time?

SH: Even if our code-containing DNA molecule appeared spontaneously, it would have been useless outside of a cell. And that cell would need complex features and functions that give it the ability to stay alive. Observations like these, which fully flesh out how remarkable molecular life really is, are leading increasing numbers of scientists to agree that DNA and life itself are products of intelligent design.

VT: Do you think teachers and professors are hostile toward students who don't accept evolution?

SH: I wouldn't say hostile. Condescending is probably more accurate. They generally view students who don't accept evolution as both ignorant and naive. They kind of smile with a look that seems to say, "Poor, unthinking person."

VT: What do you think is the best way to approach them?

SH: Dealing with professors and teachers who teach and firmly believe evolution can be difficult. Try gently suggesting the fact that some of their colleagues feel the same as you do, letting them know about the statement the 100 scientists made. If a lot of these teachers looked more closely themselves, and were made aware that other educated people had concerns with the theory, they might begin to question it a little more too.

VT: Faced with attitudes like these, why did you decide to go into science?

SH: I've always been interested in science and nature, and over the years I've learned nothing at the cutting edge of science that has made me question God as Creator. In fact, the more I learn, the more I realize there simply has to be a Creator. VT