.JPG
)
Proof of ID
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.
The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.
The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.
Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Scientist that Dr. Meyer's article came to her attention when members of the Biological Society of Washington contacted her office. "Many members of the society were stunned about the article," she told The Scientist, and she described the article as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." Dr. Scott, a well known and ardent defender of evolutionary theory, called Dr. Meyer's article "substandard science" and argued that the article should never have been published in any scientific journal.
Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society's governing council claimed that the article "was published without the prior knowledge of the council." The statement went on to declare: "We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." The society's president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article's publication on the journal's previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. "My conclusion on this," McDiarmid said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."
What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.
Accepting the scientific claim that the Cambrian explosion took place "about 530 million years ago," Meyer went on to explain that the "remarkable jump in the specified complexity or 'complex specified information' [CSI] of the biological world" cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA. Rather, some conscious design--thus requiring a Designer--is necessary to explain the emergence of these life forms.
In the remainder of his paper, Meyer attacks the intellectual inadequacies of evolutionary theory and argues for what is now known as the "design Hypothesis." As he argued, "Conscious and rational agents have, as a part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies." As he went on to assert, "We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." In other words, the development of the multitude of higher life forms found on the planet can be explained only by the guidance of a rational agent--a Designer--whose plan is evident in the design.
Meyer's article was enough to cause hysteria in the evolutionists' camp. Knowing that their theory lacks intellectual credibility, the evolutionists respond by raising the volume, offering the equivalent of scientific shrieks and screams whenever their cherished theory is criticized--much less in one of their own cherished journals. As Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute explained, "Instead of addressing the paper's argument or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate. They're trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts."
When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design "will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings," regardless of whether the paper passes peer review.
From the perspective of panicked evolutionists, the Intelligent Design movement represents a formidable adversary and a constant irritant. The defenders of Intelligent Design are undermining evolutionary theory at multiple levels, and they refuse to go away. The panicked evolutionists respond with name-calling, labeling Intelligent Design proponents as "creationists," thereby hoping to prevent any scientific debate before it starts.
Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise. The real significance of Intelligent Design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.
_______________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr
Excellent rant.
Well of course you are right about this, js1138. Human nature has always tended towards the corrupt, if history is any guide, especially if we look at the personal histories of certain great figures who have shaped human history on the grand scale.
On the other hand, there have been great historical figures who were not corrupt in the general sense; for they had found a moral compass that could hone into a "beyond," from the existential, natural world to its source; and then they let their finding be their guide. Thus is the moral sphere ever validated, down the ages. What they had discovered was incapable of falsification. (And thus not capable of verification.)
Plato was right: Indeed we do live in the metaxy, in the "in-between" of human existence -- in a tension of competing truths, to boil the problem down to its essence.
And that's why "the conversation of thoughtful minds must ever stay open." IMHO FWIW
LOL. I comment on something you brought up, and it's an "invalid" point. Totally transparent, of course, but amusing to watch you try to get your head above water nonetheless.
... equivalent to my noting that an evolutionist is the one emotionally dragging God into the debate.
LOL again. God was "dragged in" by the very article itself. If you object to that, take it up with the article's poster.
While they have in common that they are both control moves to point out logical fallacies, yours are notably lacking in science.
When you find any science to discuss, I'm sure I'll be around somewhere. In the mean time, you really ought to take up RWP's suggestion of a chemistry text, as what little science you've attempted thus far has been rather subpar. Logic texts, chemistry texts - if you're not careful, you may actually learn something around here, and then where will you be?
I leave you and your next snappy reply to the adults.
Oh, how I wish I could believe you.
Oh, yes - your Copi is four editions out of date. They're up to the 12'th now. I'm sure you'll want to alert the children's librarian at your earliest convenience, although I recommend against slipping a note written in yellow crayon into the suggestion box.
bad news betty; Phaedrus is still banned. I'm guessing he's simply still in your list somewhere, but I just checked. I do miss him fwiw.
He must have had a bad day that day ....
Do you have any famous Phaedrus threads you would recommend for some future date of review?
Betty, one other question: the 5th dimension stuff; would you please link to the 'good stuff' about that? I just read Ag's backdoor evolution article and was awestruck. Your component addition was essential. Thanks.
I have read with great interest your recent posts. I don't think they are structually capable of 'seeing' your argument. They are not crazy; they're just totally convinced the horizon at sea level really is just 12 miles away, rougly.
I find that somehow, we are not very effective getting thru with your above message, and any other like-minded messages. Poster JudyWillow offered a possible explanation a couple of weeks ago that has real merit in my view, as did poster, Elsie. No impact at all. Just lots of guffaws.
As another example, I posted my arguments regarding the Grand Unified Theory of Sex, and all the folks on the other side just snorted as well; a couple cautiously noted I may be on to something, but the rest referred me to that cultural icon of right wing thinking, Dr. Strangelove. (That movie goes a long way, actually to illuminating what is going on in the sense of Humor regions of some folks around here).
Anyway, the other side simply claims that YECs OECs, ID'ers, whatever the stripe, we are all a great and horrible kind of blight in the serene unspoiled forest of true conservative chestnuts. They are the self-designated pest eradicators.
But 2AtHomeMom, I think those ChestNuts need to really start getting a bit more fair and open up about the moral, er, amoral agenda that fuels their, how shall I say it, over-enthused response against folks like us.
But, don't hold your breath. One of them is willing to visit extreme atheistic far left AnTi-Bush web sites to pull stuff down that attacks Christians who question evo.
And if they're willing to bed w/ leftists to defeat ID'ers, what does that really imply about how they view the bed to begin with?
You had me until the end....
Fair enough.
1) Evolution is "JUST" a theory (implying that it has no scientific backing)
2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. (along with all their fake science distortions of entropy.
3) Schools teach evolution as fact, not theory.
4) Man descended from the ape.
5) There is no fossil evidence of evolution.
6) It is impossible for the Colorado River to have carved the Grand Canyon.
7) There is no evidence that the humans existed prior to 6000 years ago.
8) Radiometric dating is a false sciece used by evolutionists.
9) Genesis is true therefore evolution is false (no, we will never get by this one)
10) All non-Christians are doomed to hell.
11) Enough for now.
Thanks! I passed it along to an ID'er that seems to want to help us get past the nonsense!
John Holmes memorial placemarker
#1032 was supposed to go to you but I goofed.
Phooey!
All the newbies have dropped out by now......
btw, given your sign up date, I'm guessing you were banned and given relief; mind telling me which thread to check out so that I can be 'aware' of what line not to cross?
Oh, one other thing: you likely know of this, but it is just a reference for you in case you didn't. It is relevant to some of your central points that prompted me to post to you to start with (and of course, it undergirds your points):
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
Still sore that your false entropy proof was so badly tossed in the trashcan?
I really am amazed at how "Christians can lie so easily.
You know, it is common practice and good manners to ping another when you reference him in a post. Since you have only been here one day, you are forgiven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.