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
BWAHAHAHAHA! Maybe you should check a post-1920 thermo book out of the library, ma'am. The third law has been around for the best part of a century, and there are those who take considerable stock in the zeroth law.
Oddly, each of them is a recognizable species in itself, which belies their intermediacy.
This is just so stupid. What organism, on earth now, isn't a member of a species? They all are, because we classified them all. You think that because we gave it the name Archaeopteryx lithographica, it magically ceased being an intermediate form?
Yes, the speed of light is an issue, maybe I'll come around to that too.
Well, it'll be you against Einstein. I breathlessly await the clash of the Titans.
Does the Second Law apply to open systems?
Does the Second Law tell about the direction of processes?
Does the availabiltiy of energy ensure that order can increase within an open system?
Give me an example of something you can't classify.
Evolution's model would yield a mushy data set of animals that could only be called lifeforms, never even cats and dogs or animals and plants.
Why? Prove it.
Every archaeopteryx is an archaeopteryx, not something else.
So you think that if you name something, it removes the potential for it having a basic biological role?
1) Evolution is "JUST" a theory (implying that it has no scientific backing)
You never heard that from me. I think evolution has abundant scientific backing. I am an evolutionist, on scientific and personal experience/observational grounds.
2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. (along with all their fake science distortions of entropy.)
Au contraire, mon chere — but according to new sources I’ve read, thermodynamic entropy and information in living systems are directly, synergistically, and thus most intimately correlated terms.
3) Schools teach evolution as fact, not theory.
Schools (it seems to me) teach whatever is “politically correct.” Schools ought not to be ideologically driven; but there you are. You can’t even blame the local school board for this state of affairs. It is the parents who are generally derelict in their duty here.
4) Man descended from the ape.
But what would be the meaning of such “descent,” assuming it happened in the first place? How definite are species categories anyway? Are they exact, or merely descriptive of general tendencies? Is all of Nature really driven by the urge to reproduce such that Nature puts all her resources into this direction alone? Does anyone think that this is what Darwin really meant to suggest?
5) There is no fossil evidence of evolution.
Well, how could there be? Fossils don’t “last forever.” With fossils, it’s always a case of “catch as catch can.” You never see what you never found. But according to the theorists, evolution does last forever. So it seems we need to be looking for a kind of “forever-qualified” evidence, rather than this fleeting, temporal, fragile stuff like fossils, skeletons, etc., in order to place Darwinism on a firm footing.
6) It is impossible for the Colorado River to have carved the Grand Canyon.
Oh? Why is that? Nature has her way with material things in the long run, and has a certain way of going about it. This is what makes Nature "observable" in the first place.
7) There is no evidence that the humans existed prior to 6000 years ago.
Well, of course there is. Have you never heard of the Caves at Lascaux, in the French-Spanish Pyranees? They are said to be a human community habitation dating back some 40,000 years…. Lots of "art" -- i.e, paintings of natural figures -- on the walls....
8) Radiometric dating is a false science used by evolutionists.
I doubt that statement in general. But then everybody needs to get his instrument calibrated right, from time to time. :^)
9) Genesis is true therefore evolution is false (no, we will never get by this one).
Genesis is true, and Darwinian evolution also is true as far as it goes. But it does not go everywhere. It leaves out the origin of life, and life’s manner of transmission into material forms. Seems that’s a whole lot to be left out, assuming we want to know the truth about life in the first place.
10) All non-Christians are doomed to hell.
I’ve heard some Christians say this. I’ve also heard Muslims say similar things about their non-coreligionists. Etc. Another story for another time. Point for now is, this Christian doesn’t say such a thing. And wouldn’t.
11) Enough for now.
Amen! And Praise the Lord! And may He bless you extravagantly, dear Wild Turkey.
Of course.
Does the Second Law tell about the direction of processes?
Of course.
Does the availabiltiy of energy ensure that order can increase within an open system?
What kind of energy? Heat emitted at a high temperature? If you knew any thermo. at all, you'd know that mere energy means nothing in the context of the second law. Try G or A.
The first thing you need to understand is that you have to be able to read to post here. You can't sign up without seeing the rules.
The most important rule is that when banned you don't sign up under a different name. Most first offenders are reinstated after a few days. If not, you email the management and ask for a second chance.
Google (or the library) is your friend. It's not a secret.
Seriously: if you want to learn thermo., take a college degree in Chemistry or Physics. We spend a semester teaching Chem. Engineering students about thermo.; they're by-and-large the smartest kids in the university (and don't they know it) and they've had a lot of background, including 3-4 semesters of calculus. You can't pick up what you need froma biblical tract.
Answers: No and No. But I do not see how these questions pertain to the case at hand....
...just to answer two points you raise for now, Ichneumenon. I'll have to look at the rest tomorrow, for now it's time for me to go to bed. Got another workday tomorrow, ya know.
Goodnight!
About as smarmy a piece of writing as I've seen in a while. Congrats, BB. Are you a lawyer?
Sez who?
They don't teach calculus adequately in high school. I doubt you got more than one, anyway.
He listed all 3 laws of thermodynamics.
Don't you think you look rather silly posting categorical statements about thermodynamics without knowing that the third law even existed? Don't you think you should acquire some modicum of knowledge before making universal claims about a field whose basics you aren't even aware of?
Gould isn't God; and besides, I'd rather read his own words.
A lot of the classifications in biology are anthropogenic. Observers want to put animals into categories, and sometimes they force them. I don't know where you live, but if you live anywhere but the Northeast, look at the juncos outside your window. How many species are there?
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.