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
Well, I wasn't talking about this article in particular...but let's consider it, since it's the topic at hand. If what you say is true, then shouldn't his ideas be faulty? And if they are in fact faulty, shouldn't they be easy to refute?
If the man is so unqualified as to even frame a hypothesis, this fact should get him quickly shot down in peer review. If he actually can frame an idea coherent within the current state of the science, then let that idea take its lumps in the rough-and-tumble of peer review and reproducible results.
Ah, but there's the rub...this is a highly theoretical discipline we're talking about. It's difficult to design an experiment to investigate the origin of speciation, after all. That sort of situation lends itself quite readily to professors playing "battling credentials."
Well, I guess I'm wierd then. I really haven't a clue as to where life came from. God may certianly have zapped it into place. Or perhaps He took a longer route like He did with Evolutionary species development.
The bottom line there is no real evidence to say where life came from, but there is plenty of evidence of Evolution.
Since I think God's creation is as important to study as God's Word. And since pictures, (and fossils, and DNA, and experiments) tell far more than words, I think that some people's translation of Genesis is just not correct.
I don't think there is a conflict between God's Creation and God's Word. I just think that some mortal humans don't read the words right.
Excellent post!! I think you would agree that even today, except, for a negligible minority or elite,probably yourself included, the mechanics of what you have postulated are driven by the engines of Scripture. And the transition costs of converting to a secular society have resulted social cataclisms of incredible proportions. So, while I generally agree with you I have to wonder about the wisdom of Toto dissing 'the man behind the curtain'.
Can I offer food for thought? I've pondered this, and thought that perhaps our journey -- continuing journey, possibly -- through various cellular, primate and hominid stages, etc., IS in God's image, His way of revealing to us His own journey and therefore helping us to gradually understand ourselves and the paths we take to Godliness. Perhaps it is one manifestation of "eternal life." Certainly "heaven on earth" would be achievable if every one of us lived by the Ten Commandments and by resisting the Seven Deadly Sins alone; I have no doubt that a) God loves us and b) the Bible is a divine manual telling us how to thrive.
Lately, I've been thinking that there is a beautiful symmetry between essential Darwinism (species must adapt or perish) and God's laws to which we must adapt or surely perish -- societies that have no moral compunctions about murder, stealing, lying, etc., are doomed to destroy themselves.
One other thing that I think relates somehow. We are not born with innate knowledge of right and wrong -- primitive societies have without guilt or sense of sin, apparently, sacrificed and killed children in the name of pagan gods, engaged in adult-child sex, murdered in order to accomplish what they desire, etc. Also, life is not fair, and it never has been. Never, not ever, not in any species, not under any circumstances. A child is born with a cleft palate or a club foot, while his brother is born whole -- it is not fair, it just IS. Life is not fair and never has been.
YET every individual person born on this planet knows from the earliest consciousness the concept of fairness; a child knows that it's not fair if his sister gets a treat and he does not, or if he and his sister do something bad and he gets punished and his sister does not. A colorblind person who cannot see green cannot conceive the color green. A child born to cruel and abusive parents thinks it is normal and cannot conceive of any other normality. So how is it we all can conceive what is fair versus what is not, when life has never been fair?
This alone, to me, is proof of God -- we know what fairness is because once, somewhere, we caught a glimpse of it. Was that glimpse via God's image in which we are made? I have NO IDEA what the real significance of this is (!!) or how it ties to our natural history on this planet via God's miracles, but I think it carries a clue. I wonder if there is a connection between fairness and grace? Just tossing it out there, to get hairy!!
Excuse me? I think you are the one to have cut the classes. Cambrian explosian appeared about 570 million years ago. Before that only one celled creatures and algae were around and not for 2.5 billion years. Earth has been here about 4 billion, life has not. Also, there is no fosil record before the Cambrian explosion to show how these life forms "evolved" from the one cells and algae. Perhaps you could explain this? If you can you will be the first one to do so.
I am NOT a creationist. I am a non-evolutionists who has been convinced that evolution never happened. It has been disproved, despite the protestaions of evolutionists. Most non-evolutionists cannot get their papers published because of the prejudice against them and people screaming creationists!
Sooner or later the ideas will change, the proof will finally overwhelm them. I feel there is a third theory that is yet to be found to explain both the origin of life and the species.
BTW, anyone who thinks they can seperate the two just isn't thinking.
ping for later reading
It's really quite easy to investigate the process of speciation. What's hard is to investigate the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
The only claim of IDers so far is that since they view Evolution as problematic, then obviously there must be an Intelligent Agent that put us here.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. There are many more scientific areas of study that are much more problematic than Evolution, and those problems don't require an answer that "God did it". Litterally any unexplained thing can labeled an act of God.
So how would you go about scientifically testing for the existence of God? Propose experiements.
Be specific.
Didn't have a Ph.D
Uh, his work that was published was his doctoral thesis is theoretical physics. Not to be compared to a history "professor".
It all boils down to: "I'll respect your rights if you respect mine." Enlightened self interest.
I said something like that last year and got hounded by the Libertarians for months.
bump
That is -- evolution is just a *theory*. The Holy Text and Revelation -- those are Truth. Higher truths than the evidences -- still truth is truth and the evidences are truthful in there essence. What we make of those bones, artifacts, geology, chemsitry, physics, and measurements and mathematical constructions is subject to the variances of interpretation of what they mean and how they fit together. Those change over time. Those are subject to vanity and politics, and the ebbs and tides of fashion.
There is no photo of God, either.
There is a hypothesis that teh Bible is the word of God. But, since it cannot be validated or falsified, it remains a hypothesis and cannot be elevated to the level of a theory.
Agree with that.
That is -- evolution is just a *theory*.
And agree with that as well. I believe that the geological column represents hundreds of millions of years. I believe that species have come and gone.
But I don't agree with certain aspects of Darwinian evolution. I do not think that life as we know it know could have evolved through mutation or chance. But I do believe that life has an innate ability, through its own power, to reach a higher potential and awareness.
Google "Edicarian fauna" and get back to us.
Ok. So life on this earth changes over time because of, what, exactly?
It's easy to get caught up in studying the holes in something that you miss everything else.
Lots of smart people think we didn't go to the moon either. Fox even had a show about it. They point out the "problems" in the video's
A whole bunch of people in france think that the US staged 9/11. There was a best selling book published about it. They studied the "holes" too.
Probably a big majority think that Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy. They look for the "holes" in the story. Of course, they don't have serious evidence of anything else. The "holes" are all they care about.
I'm sure I could go on, but we'll just have to disagree. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, despite what some claim are the "holes" in it.
The evidence for Evolution is like a movie. Different frames, that when viewed in sequence prove there was movement. But it's easy to get hung up that there is missing data between the frames. Some would demand that one more frame be added. Then two more between those three. And on and on. But the process can never really "prove" that there was movement between the frames. It can only prove that movement is the best description of the available evidence of the frames in the movie.
The Holy Text and Revelation at Sinai are not hypotheis nor theory, they are Primal Truth.
So when you say you believe that geological column represents hundreds of millions of years. and that species have come and gone, I do not think that is the same level of "belief" that you might applu when jumping up in the belief that you will return to ground.
It has long been stated that 'creation' or design were not antithetical to Darwin's observations on diversity in species or within species.
The debate,as such, now centers on the most dearly held and least supported tenants of both:
Can Darwin show how "Life" came to be on earth? (no)
and
Can "not darwin" show otherwise? (no)
Problem is that one side (evolutionists) are overstating their license and the other (other) are lumping an entire concept into one pivotal element of their argument against the (neo-darwinist?) position.
No one is going to make progress until both figure out what it is that they are discussing.
My problem is that I sincerely believe that the Darwinist side has more of an agenda than does the 'other'.
The Darwinists believe, deep in their hearts, that any loss is a defeat in the larger issue - and in that they are far more the arrogant, ignorant, 'sheeple' of the issue.
I may well have descended from a monkey - I do not believe I an descended from a 'primordal soup' or a chance melding of atoms, or a happily random mix of planet, ooze, and lightening strikes.
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.