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
Eyewitness accounts, written down, preserved for a long time.
These aren't proof of the resurrection. These are proof of the belief in the resurrection. Two different things. Further, many don't even purport to be first-hand accounts.
Horrible deaths, which SHOULD have caused much recanting, if the facts were not true, were the end of many 'believers', who were THERE when it all started.
The degree to which someone believes something is not necessarily indicative of the truth of that belief. Even to the point of suffering horrible death. A schitzophrentic may assert, upon horrific torture, that the voices he hears are real. The fact that he is willing to endure torture, rather than deny them, does not mean they are real. (And no, I am not saying that the people who are believed to have witnessed the resurrection were schitzophrentics.)
Again, I have no doubt that there is proof of the belief in the resurrection, but not the event itself.
I guess my faith is not strong enough to believe that it all did NOT happen.
The reverse. You faith is strong enough to let you believe it did happen.
(Kinda like a holocaust denier, 2000 years from now....)
(I'll ignore your vile insult.) Not really. There is plentiful physical evidence and more than a mere handful of firsthand accounts for the existence of the holocaust. I doubt that will change in two thousand years. Further, the holocaust does not require belief in the supernatural, which belief in the resurrection does. That makes the required proofs for the holocaust significantly less.
Hurray and thank you for your faith--I'm not a bio student but all the science courses I've taken teach nothing but evolution!
Actually they are. For example, Mark, probably the oldest of the texts according to biblical scholars, is the Apostle Peter's eyewitness acount
Those of us on both sides see both sides as smart and stupid.
I did not say that none were first-hand accounts, just to set the record straight. But, more to the point, if it is Mark's gospel, then it isn't Peter's account. It is Mark reporting of Peter's account. So that makes it, at the least, a second-hand account.
.Ten different appearances of our risen Lord are recorded in the New Testament. They may be arranged as follows:
To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre alone. This is recorded at length only by John (20:11-18), and alluded to by Mark (16:9-11).
To certain women, "the other Mary," Salome, Joanna, and others, as they returned from the sepulchre. Matthew (28:1-10) alone gives an account of this. (Comp. Mark 16:1-8, and Luke 24:1-11.)
To Simon Peter alone on the day of the resurrection. (See Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5.)
To the two disciples on the way to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection, recorded fully only by Luke (24:13-35. Comp. Mark 16:12, 13).
To the ten disciples (Thomas being absent) and others "with them," at Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection day. One of the evangelists gives an account of this appearance, John (20:19-24).
To the disciples again (Thomas being present) at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:33-40; John 20:26-28. See also 1 Cor. 15:5).
To the disciples when fishing at the Sea of Galilee. Of this appearance also John (21:1-23) alone gives an account. To the eleven, and above 500 brethren at once, at an appointed place in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; comp. Matt. 28:16-20).
To James, but under what circumstances we are not informed (1 Cor. 15:7).
To the apostles immediately before the ascension. They accompanied him from Jerusalem to Mount Olivet, and there they saw him ascend "till a cloud received him out of their sight" (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-10).
Thank you for posting Dennett's whole, in-context passage from his book. That really puts a whole different light on the little "Dennett wants to put creationists in a zoo" grenades that creationists love to toss about!
(PLACEMARKER)
You claim if somebody questions evolution they "walk like a duck..." - clearly you are intolerantly devoted to your own opinion and everybody else must be labeled.
Saying said person, because he is a creationist, has a subpar intelligence would be bigoted, but I didn't say that.
Actually no. Bigotry is related to YOUR opinions - not insults you may hurl at other people.
Clearly you are intolerant of people that do not agree with your opinion on evolution. That is the definition of bigotry.
I'm perfectly tolerant of others' opinions. You haven't found me threatening anyone holding a differing opinion, have you? Indeed, the very fact that I engage in discourse with those of other opinions indicates a decided tolerance.
All valid answers, yet not acceptable in present case. What is on the face-down side of the fifty coins?
That's going to excite the leather crowd.
So you absolutely believe life on earth was designed by space aliens, who designed themselves.
You give a single label to all that do not agree with your opinion - you don't need to threaten anyone to be a bigot. I think bigotry is a strong work and probably is not really applicable - but when you brought out the tired old "walks like a duck" slogan - you started flirting with bigotry.
The point is: questioning evolution does not make one a creationist (that thinking is completely illogical). Like many evolutionists you argue to a creationist straw man of your own creation.
From the way you talk - you seem to see yourself as intellectually superior in these debates. Who knows - you might actually be. I just think you would be better off demonstrating your superior intellect rather than trying to apply labels to people.
What an amazingly inept statement.
So you believe there are only two possible positions: Evolution as it stands today is fact and never needs to be questioned or one believes life on earth was designed by space aliens.
Some of you evolutionist "men of science" seem to be ignorant of logic and the basic scientific method.
Questioning one theory does not impact any other theory (Per se)
Finding a flaw in one theory is not supporting evidence for another theory.
There is no requirement that one most have an alternate theory if one questions a theory.
Rarely are there only two possible positions on a subject.
I'm glad to hear that you haven't personally done the calculations. You refer to them, if only indirectly, in your posts. ID cannot escape these probability calculations because they are are the only argument ID has.
You still haven't told me what logic you employed in deciding my image was a natural snowflake. Are you absolutely certain it isn't a photo of a Lucite snowflake? Would you bet your children's lives on it?
Actually, there is such a requirement in the practice of science. Particularly when there is no sound argument against the currently accepted theory.
Do you know for certian that your brain (your very being, consciousness, logic) is the ultimate result of mindlessness?
Hmmm… This comes from another forum from an individual who is neither ID nor neo-darwin friendly:
Academia has some rather odd standards and I’m not sure they are altogether “academic.” Recently the Chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at my alma mater said, in so many words, that the victims of 911 deserved what they got; comparing them (or at least those who worked in the financial industry) to NAZI’s. Judging by previous experience he’s not likely to face anything other than a few words of impotent indignation. Because just last summer the president of the university said that calling rape victims “c***s” could be considered “flattering” in some contexts. She, i.e., she, is still the president of the university. I expect he will remain chairman of his department.Is this bigotry or just your garden variety dogmatism? Now he goes on to say :Calling the victims of 911 “little Eichman’s” or rape victims “c***s”… OK. Saying that maybe the “Cambrian Explosion” occurred too rapidly to be accounted for by existing theory---Kiss your career goodbye!
“Political correctness” is an attack on our fundamental rights. It has proven to be a powerful and sustained attack. It has very powerful advocates—like university presidents and chairmen. They are not merely “advocates.” They are in positions of power. They have the power to enforce—their beliefs… And they do.Now this relates to the OP because Sternberg, who at one time was respected, allowed Meyer’s paper to be published is experiencing this:
In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003; 4: 143-63. Creationism and intelligent design.
by Pennock, RT.Lyman Briggs School and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48825, USA.
Abstract: Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.
The phrase "Wedge strategy" was first published by creationists. It is the official policy of the Unification Church, and Moonies like Jonathan Wells.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html
Even if true… so what? Look at the entire issue.
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.