hysterical Darwinites panic

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.

I didn't think absolute temperature and incorrect parameter charge significant, will review.

It is amazing that whenever your errors are pointed out, you think they are significant. That is why those kooks on those websites make all that money selling y'all DVDs!

One of your invalid points is to consider your slams about procedure equivalent to my noting that an evolutionist is the one emotionally dragging God into the debate.

I didn't drag God into the debate. There was a whole paragraph in the original article. You have been told this three times. Why do you keep lying?

but according to new sources I’ve read, thermodynamic entropy and information in living systems are directly, synergistically, and thus most intimately correlated terms.

But not contradictory.

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.

Really. Some of the "Christians" right here have told me that I am doomed to hell for not being a Christian.

I responded to the conclusion drawn that RobRoy's reply meant ipso facto that he "can't support" his allegation. That conclusion doesn't follow because RobRoy has been on the forum for 6.5 years. IOW, the length of time he has been on the forum is good reason to believe that he has in fact tired of fighting the same argument as he says.

If he is tired of fighting the same argument, he should not bring the subject up! His answer is the typical dodge. I have asked several to support similar claims but none can. That leads to my logical conclusion that RR is just blowing smoke.

(1) Do you believe in a higher force in the universe that interacts with humankind throughout history ?

I think people should keep their spiritual beliefs out of science discussions.

(2) Do you think some times in human history are more laden with potential than others ?

Yes.

(3) Do you think these current days, weeks and months we are living are indeed special ?

Yes.

P.S. Your flow chart is very clever.

I just "borrowed" it from another.

Why would there be any drive toward advancement? Would not lifeforms stay as single cells?

Most life is single-celled, by any measure -- numbers, varietiey, weight. Large organisms are at the outer edge of the bell curve.

Concerning your third question: the mutations are random but the selection is not. The problem is that you must explain how the advancement appears in the first place.

That is the explanation. There is no "advancement", just change that survives selection. The mechanisms by which the genome becomes longer are fairly well understood and are observable -- duplications, viral insertions, etc.

Some of the "Christians" right here have told me that I am doomed to hell for not being a Christian.

Then it seems to me they are saying more than they really know. For they don't know how you will "turn out," what you will become, etc.; and they don't know how Christ will judge you. For all they know, He may have a very special place in His heart for you....

In any case we are directed to love our neighbor as ourself. To flat-out tell someone that they are damned to Hell doesn't strike me as being particularly neighborly.... FWIW

To quote an earlier post of mine on an unknown thread, what if there is a squirrel that has the 1.0 edition of new, improved paws for climbing faster to evade predators, but it never passes on its genes for such because it ran under the tires of my car before mating? Such an event would have an effect on the observed rate of adaptation... :-)

Selection is statistical. Allele change in a population is gradual. Consider the casino. Does the house always win? No. Does the house make a profit? Yes.

Life plays with an unlimited budget, because the sun keeps pumping the money in. The populations that have the statistical edge will usually prosper. But things change, sometimes suddenly, and extinctions occur.

We are all predestined, right?

I said:

What happens to the light that bounces off the surface? Ultimately it will contact a surface and be absorbed!

And you said:

...just as the light energy from the sun is eventually radiated to space and attains a very low temperature. So the laser decreases the entropy of the condensate, just as the sun decreases the entropy of living systems.

You need a viable thermodynamic mechanism. In the case just stated, the mechanism is the laser and the accompanied container for the gas. Without reading the paper, I would say that one would have to perform a Fourier analysis and setup the system to cause the energy waves to cancel out. Constrained boundary conditions allow the decrease in entropy. Intelligence has to be used to setup the system.

The supposed Darwinian mechanism, however lacks the constraints as compared to the laser setup. A multiple of specific mutations are required, because life is functionally coupled. A change in one system necessitates a change in the adjacent systems and parts. Given the low probability of the mutations that lead to advancement, there is not enough time available that explains the plethora of advanced biological systems.

Don't think that was quite fair, RWP--the question did say "ensure" and "can" ; and your hyperlink contains an example of energy (ordinary light) that decreases order by increasing heat.

Read it again. You can't cool something by transferring heat to it. The thermo books are quite definite on that. The light from a laser is most definitely not heat.

The question he asked was stupid in the first place. The availability of energy is not relevant; what is relevant is the quality of the energy, of which the temperature of the energy source is a measure. I pointed out this elementary principle to him, and he ignored it.

Here's a trivial example: the ice in the Greenland ice cap has a comparatively low entropy. Its original source was an ocean, where it had a much higher entropy. How was its entropy lowered? How was the increased order produced? Evaporation following by wind transport, both which processes are driven by heat from the sun; but more importantly, driven by heat applied at a high temperature in one location and removed at a lower temperature in another location.

I'm happy to dispel ignorance under any circumstances, but if one wants me to do it patiently and courteously, one needs to pay the appropriate tuition to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. :-)

Given the low probability of the mutations that lead to advancement, there is not enough time available that explains the plethora of advanced biological systems.

Low probability does not equate to impossibility. Especially, considering the infinite universe, it is very probable.

One more time. Here is the quote from the article posted to start this thread. And YOU accuse me of dragging God into the discussion!

"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."

We are all predestined, right?

Only in the sense that God is omniscient, having total foreknowledge of how all things will turn out. From outside of space and time, from Eternity, He sees everything, comprehensively, instantaneously, simultaneously. But from the human standpoint, it seems to me we do not have this kind of knowledge. We are denizens of space and time, moving towards an uncertain, unknown future. And we possess God's gift of free will. This is a very difficult theological problem, however. My own particular faith tradition does not stress predestination, but free will.

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.