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
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is usually stated this way: “entropy in a closed system can never decrease”
There are three different kinds of entropy that invariably get confused when we speak of the “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” and biological systems. They are:
Shannon probability-distribution entropy
Kolmogorov-Solomonoff-Chaitin sequence/algorithmic complexity.
For clarity, Shannon probability-distribution entropy can be called “uncertainty”:
The only difference between uncertainty and entropy for the microstates of a macromolecule is in the units of measure, bits versus joules per K respectively
Thus, life does not violate the physical laws but it is unique in successful communication, the gain of information content and therefore, functional complexity (or whatever brand of complexity you like).
This is the difference between life and non-life. It is also the difference between life and death. When the successful communications cease, the organism is dead. Where there is no successful communication, there is no life.
Disclaimer: all of this is referring to that which occurs in nature, not artificial intelligence, robots, etc.
A few more items relating the history of entropy and the arrow of time:
The modern concept of the atom was first proposed by the British chemist and physicist John Dalton in 1808 and was based on his studies that showed that chemical elements enter into combinations based on fixed ratios of their weights. The existence of molecules as the smallest particles of a substance that can exist in the free—that is, gaseous—state and have the properties of any larger amount of the substance, was first hypothesized by the Italian physicist and chemist Amedeo Avogadro in 1811, but did not find general acceptance until about 50 years later, when it also formed the basis of the kinetic theory of gases (see Avogadro's Law). Developed by Maxwell, the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, and other physicists, it applied the laws of mechanics and probability to the behavior of individual molecules, and drew statistical inferences about the properties of the gas as a whole.
A typical but important problem solved in this manner was the determination of the range of speeds of molecules in the gas, and from this the average kinetic energy of the molecules. The kinetic energy of a body, as a simple consequence of Newton's second law, is ymv2, where m is the mass of the body and v its velocity. One of the achievements of kinetic theory was to show that temperature, the macroscopic thermodynamic property describing the system as a whole, was directly related to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. Another was the identification of the entropy of a system with the logarithm of the statistical probability of the energy distribution. This led to the demonstration that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium corresponding to that of highest probability is also the state of maximum entropy. Following the success in the case of gases, kinetic theory and statistical mechanics were subsequently applied to other systems, a process that is still continuing.
Kinetic Theory of Gases: A Brief Review
Reversibility and Entropy (arrow of time)
(If you were to specify a pattern afetr the toss -- but before seeing the toss results -- the same. Rigged.)
Delta S GE 0
Please state this argument. Although I, out of principle, do not volunteer my own personal beliefs in this arena, I have no problem with stating that atheism need not be a religion.
I'm saying I believe physical reality is infinitely deep and infinitely complex. We will never achieve complete understanding. But nothing is hidden or off limits.
Of course the second law applies to everything, RWP! However, living systems "deal" with entropy in a far different way than classical gasses. Boiling it all down, what they do is try to maintain the greatest distance from thermodynamic equilibrium as possible; that is, as much as possible to channel the increase and spread of the entropy that would otherwise set up under the given physical conditions in order to perform useful work to maintain themselves. They are able to do this effectively by modifying their internal boundary conditions, which is something a gas cannot do. Entropy in a gas will just inexorably increase and spread out into the surrounding environment. Once we recognize that the ability to counter the tendency towards equilibrium is the sign or even benchmark of a living system, it becomes possible to recognize that the so-called "Boltzmann regime" is just the wrong model to describe how the second law affects living systems. People who want to understand "What is life?" realize that stochastic thermodynamic models are inadequate to the task of explanation. FWIW.
Which helps to make a point that is implicit in what I wrote: There is a kind of "evolution" in the understanding of the great laws of the universe. The statistical interpretation is one of the ways in which Newton's second law can be understood which, in Boltzmann's time extended only to the description of ideal gases. Today, others are working on an interpretation that is better capable of describing physical proccesses going on in living systems.
But I have a sneaky feeling you would simply detest their work, RWP. You may have many virtues; but open-mindedness doesn't appear to be one of them. JMHO FWIW
I think you see the losing side of your argument so you duck my examples.
Thank you so much for the ping to your reply!
I understand your examples and -- I think -- the point you are trying to make. You posit that any outcome is as likely as any other. Do I have that right?
For the situation of a set number of random coin tosses.
The following are challenges to those who (a) claim to be atheist and (b) do not consider atheism to be a religion: What is religion?
Believers are not challenged to respond since they already, by definition, believe.
The challenge: I can personally accept that yours (an atheist's) is not a religious belief if you can provide plausible scientific or mathematical evidences for all of the following:
2. Prove a natural source for information in the universe and then translate it to information in biological life. This does not mean the DNA, but the communications that occur in living creatures - reduction of uncertainty of a molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. [Shannon] It is an action, not a message – i.e. a life force Possible but unexplored causes include harmonics, a universal vacuum field, geometry which gives rise to strings – all of which have a Scriptural root, i.e. God speaking it all into being, Creator outside space/time.
3. Prove a natural source for the will to live, the want to live or struggle to survive that characterizes life. IOW, self-replication is not enough. In an embryo, if the cells simply self-replicated the result would be a tumor. In life, the cells are organized into functional molecular machines which communicate together striving as one organism to live. Why does the organism have a will to live? Why should the component machinery (cardiovascular, neural, etc.) cooperate to that end?
4. Explain how the incredibly delicate physical constants, physical laws and asymmetry between matter and anti-matter came to be so perfectly balanced. A slight change one way or the other and there would be no life, or no universe at all. Appeals to the plentitude argument (anything that can happen, has) will only work in an infinite past, i.e. to make that argument one would have to first answer challenge #1.
5. Explain why out of all the possible spatial and temporal dimensions our vision and mind are tuned to a particular selection of four coordinates – why not three or five, etc.
6. Explain how biological semiosis arose through natural means. Semiosis refers to the language or symbols of communication in biological life - the encoding and decoding. This has two sides, the language itself (DNA, RNA) and the understanding of it. Where’d it come from?
7. Explain how functional complexity arose through natural means – why and how molecular machines organized around functions to the benefit of the greater organism. Of particular interest would be the functions which would not work if a key part were missing – i.e. cardiovascular without the lungs, nervous system without the brain, etc.
8. Explain how eyes developed concurrently across phyla – i.e. vertebrates and invertebrates – and why there have been virtually no new body plans since the Cambrian Explosion. Immutable regulatory control genes is all I can think of. But why would they in particular be immutable?
9. Explain the emergence of qualia through nature – likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil, etc. – consciousness and the mind.
A sequence is as likely as any other, 2^-n. The distribution of heads and tails, ignoring the sequence, is a different probability all together.
Understand that I said all heads and not any combination of heads and tails. How many outcomes are there when we allow at least 30 heads? At least 40, etc. Well you can figure those out. Combinatorics 201. The answer for fifty heads out of fifty coins is easy and you've already given it. One chance in 2**50. That is, impossible. Impossible unless the toss is rigged or the coins are rigged. Assuming we saw the toss and the coins and by that would make a assumption of rigging the toss very very unlikely -- we ain't talking magical space aliens coin tossing here, just a man out of the crowd.
What's on the other side of the coins?
See my last response to WildTurkey.
BB, you don't spend nearly as much time in the science threads as I do, so you can't be aware of how much genuine nonsense and venomous anti-science hostility Right Wing Professor has to deal with. Don't take it personally if he sometimes seems a bit gruff. He really puts up with a lot from some truly nasty posters. All of the academic scientists do when they post information for our benefit. This is deplorable, but it seems to be something we're stuck with in the science threads. Someone of his academic standing has a great deal to offer, and we're fortunate that he spends time with us.
Hmm. You agreed that MY coin toss sequence had the same odds. Therefore it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for me to toss it but I did. I did the impossible, according to you.
At the lab, take 20 coins, only 20 eh? I'm trying to keep this to your puny human lifetime. A favor it is!
Label them 1,2,3, through 20 so we can place them into that nice "HTHTH HTHTH ..." sequence you gave above. Now start tossing. Let us know when you hit the pattern. Okay?
Not impossible, just improbable (i.e., the odds of it occurring are non-zero, so it is not impossible.) There is a small chance of any set pattern occurring.
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.