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.

Which is more likely to have caused us to be here now as we observe ourselves and the universe around us? (A) G-d (B) God-free Random Processes (C) Don't know (D) Can't be determined.

Since we are talking about what is more likely to have occurred, we can safely discard "C" and "D", because they deal with belief and the ability to discover what occurred, not what is more likely. Thus, they don't answer the question. As between "A" and "B", what is more "likely" is "B", assuming that you mean the Judeo-Christian God, all-powerful, all knowing, etc. As a logical proposition, choice "B" only requires the appearance of random processes, while choice "A" requires the existence of an infinite being capable of anything and everything, including all that in encompassed by choice "B". Since we have some inklings as to what is required for "B", under the study of biology, physics, etc., and absolutely nothing on how the being described in "A" could even exist, let alone direct things, "B" is "more likely." (I am not saying that this is some attempt to "prove" that God doesn't exist {as I've been accused of in the past}, I am talking about likelihoods, here.)

Which is more likely to have caused us to be here now as we observe ourselves and the universe around us? (A) Creation by G-d in Six Days (B) Initial Creation of some archtypes (such as space-time, physics, etc and the ideations of plant, planet, star, sun, insect, animal and man) and constant tuning by G-d thereafter (C) A God-free universe and physics just popped up last nano-second in this condition (D) God-free evolution from some very primitive initial condition

You seem to be mixing cosmology, abiogenesis and biological evolution. As discussed in question one, we can eliminate the "God" theory on the likelihood question. By definition, such a God must be able to create the natural conditions which are presented as an alternate, so they are a subset of the belief in God. So whatever basis you have to believe in the existence of a God that can create the natural conditions can simply be applied to the natural conditions themselves. Thus, and again, strictly in terms of probability, that makes the God-free answers, as a logical matter, more likely. So that leaves "C" or "D." Of these, I am going to assume that you mean by "C" that the entire universe: existence, memories, history, etc., have only existed for a nano-second, and that our belief that it has lasted longer is a mere artifact of the fact that the universe blinked into existence with the appearance that these memories are real. There is no evidence for that. On the other hand, with "D", there is plentiful evidence that the universe has existed for a long, long time, and that evolution has guided the diversification of life on earth. So I would say that "D" is the most likely.

The fruitlessness of your attempt to draw the one particular pre-named sequence from even 20 coins would be a marvel to you. And if you had 50 coins -- it would be for all practical intents, impossible.

That is YOUR fallacy. You are trying to say that our exact existence was predicted when it was not.

We are here as we are, not as predicted. You yourself said that if something exists, the probability of it existing is ONE. Thus the probability of our existing is ONE. Now run back to your creationists web-site.

Indeed, the question of "what is a 'religion'?" is pivotal to my challenges. That is why I included the link, to explain why atheism is considered a religion, especially wrt politics and 1st amendment rights.

I think it should be included for those purposes, because of due process and equal protection considerations. Further, I think some people have created a "religion" of atheism, but I don't think it is necessary.

If a person is atheist or even simply agnostic without considering and/or answering any of the challenges, that is fine. But such a reaction is a belief and thus "materialism" and in particular "scientific materialism" from such a one is on par with similarly biased theological arguments about origins and life. IOW, in that case the notion that a person is atheist by reason cannot apply - scientific objectivity is out the window.

True, but, again, one can be an atheist without having a rational basis for it. The default you seem to be operating under is that "you are religious unless there is a materialistic or rational proof for your opinion." I don't believe that holds.

I've heard someone say the people are atheistic about everyone else's beliefs. As a mental exercise: If you don't believe in Thor, Loki, Zeus, Zarathustra, etc., etc., you probably don't do so rationally. You haven't examined the truth or falsity of every precept of every religious group and every deity that has every been proposed or talked about. Atheists are exactly the same, but they apply that reasoning to Jahovah (or Yahweh), as well. Your belief in the non-truth of Loki doesn't mean you adhere to the "religion" of non-Loki-ism.

Also, "doubt" does not equal atheism. Doubting Thomas was an Apostle, too.

Very true. Doubt is religiously neutral.

Thank you for your reply, WildHorseCrash!

“It” is never an issue until one argues that scientific materialism is “proof” of atheism. (e.g. infidels.org) I will be quite content if we can agree that arguments from answers-in-Genesis and infidels.org are both ideologically biased and should be viewed (and perhaps largely dismissed) accordingly.

I included the “What is religion?” link because it is a challenge to comprehend what atheism is or is not wrt other religions. There are many definitions, of course, but the conclusion drawn at that site is comprehensive and offers many sources and links for the curious.

Personally, I am not bothered by whatever ideological bias one might bring to the science debates on this Forum - as long as the correspondent does not claim a superior position with regard to science, which is to be ideologically neutral.

betty boop and I both notoriously dismiss Lewontin, Pinker, Singer and a few others as authorities on the basis of their well published ideological bias. This is the same order of objections raised to authorities embraced on the answers-in-Genesis website.

I suspect you and betty boop and I will have many exciting debates on the forum because you seem to understand that there is a boundary between the objectivity of science and the ideology of atheism (in particularly evangelical atheism). By agreeing that there are such boundaries, we are free to discuss anything in the middle ground without reproach – and even discuss a biased view with the understanding that the worldview itself is not objective science.

Just to note that you chose a "belief system" yet appear to be unable to call it what it is.

You assume here that the questions, "what do you believe about..." and "what do you believe is most likely..." are the same question. They are not. For example, I dismissed the answer "Don't know" from the first question because it doesn't answer the question of what I think is most likely, but very well could answer the question of what I believe.

In the last question C and D are more or less equal.

I don't believe tht C and D are anywhere near equal. Take, for example, people's beliefs about their family. "C" could be correct, and me and my siblings have one-nanosecond old, spontaneously generated memories about our common descent from our parents, or "D" is correct we could merely have been all children of the same parents, who actually lived during an actual stretch of time.

If "C" is correct, it is incredibly fortuitous, because the odds greatly disfavor all of our memories in this matter being in agreement (i.e., none of us remember having different parents, and no one else "remembers" being a child of my parents.) This, in combination with all of the near-infinate other temporal relationships of this type, both biological and physical, in the entire universe, would make a spontaneous recent generation near infinately unlikely. When compared with the odds that the apparent temporal agreements in biological and other natural relationship exist because they reflect a real connection and actual descent which occurred in past times make the latter explaination much more likely. So, C and D are very much not "more or less equal."

Your choice of C and exclusion of D indicates you are not a solid believer in random processes by the way, at least so I suspect.

I didn't choose C as the answer to either question. I found "B" in the first, and "D" in the second. Further, I am not a believer in "random processes" where non-random processes are indicated. For example, natural selection is a non-random process.

No matter what happens in a series of coin tosses, the odds are the same. We (very wisely) suspect fifty heads in a row to indicate a rigged coin.

But the coin toss series is irrelevant to predicting what is likely or unlikely in a biological system, because no series is predicted. If we think of mutations as coin tosses, each toss survives to be replicated or it does not. There is no predicted direction of the series and no required outcome.

If we look at the evolution of a complex structure, such as an eye, there is no prediction or requirement that eyes evolve. In fact, 99.999999 percent of all living things do not have eyes and get along just fine without them.

More importantly, the evolution of eyes is not at all like requiring all heads (or any SPECIFIC series, for that matter). There are many different degrees of eyeness, from photropisms in plants, through photosensivity in single celled organisms, through lensless eyes, compound eyes, and eyes that are sharper than human eyes.

Even among humans there are vast differences in the effectiveness of eyes, based on genetic differences. There are many kinds and degrees of color blindness, for example.

So calculation of the probability of evolution (after the fact) makes no sense. It ignores the simple fact that prior to a change or modification or "improvement", there is no prediction that such and event will occur.

I'm going to toss in one more monkey wrench. Some Freepers have posted assertions that bacteria respond to environmental stress -- say the presence of an antibiotic -- by mutating to survive. This implies that mutation is an "intelligent" behavior rather than a fortutious event.

I'm wondering whether ID proponents have proposed or conducted any research on this phenomenon, and whether ID makes any testable predictions that would differentiate it from mainstream biology. I'm not aware of any useful research being conducted outside mainstream biology.

By no means do I have the answer yet, but the more I study chaos, the more I find hidden complexity. Each time I find the "pattern" or method I say "wow", it is so simple, yet so elegant. Each one I have found so far is deterministic; but generates near infinite outcomes; while moving towards and ending at a goal. At the risk of gross over simplification, it is like being on a stairway and you can choose whether the next step is up or down; however, every third time you choose up, you must choose up again. Given an entire population, most people will end up at the top of the stairs.

I also see where these "patterns" are changed somewhat (in the past) and go off in a better direction.

In genetics, my intuition says that "firmware" will be the most interesting. Firmware is what creatures know without being taught. Humans seem to have the least amount of firmware, but what they potentially do have seems more unique.

As I mentioned previously, I have chosen not to reveal on these boards (overtly) what my particular religious beliefs are, because I do not want anyone to view or evaluate my arguments on science though a real or perceived bias about religion. Heck, as with your post about atheism, I don't think one must be an atheist to discuss atheism (Not that I am an atheist... or maybe I am... Hee hee.)

Science and religion need not conflict. They do, sometimes. Some pro-science people attempt to reduce religion in a misguided attempt to prop up science, and some pro-religion people attempt to reduce science in a misguided attempt to prop up religion. Neither of these (nor the gradations inbetween) are, in my mind, proper.

Newton had nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have been (mis)attributing the Second Law of Thermodynamics to Newton for years by now, and you are the first to correct me -- in your usual charming and gracious manner, of course. Thank you for that.

Now that we have that straight, I would like to know your opinion of my contention that Boltzmann's conception of the second law as a law of disorder is not an exhaustive basis for the investigation of biological systems, which seem to be characterized by the ability to manifest higher and higher degrees of self-organization. Boltzmann's experiments with classical gasses apparently did not indicate this type of behavior.

It is very difficult for me to imagine that living systems are finally reducible to their chemical reactions, the outcomes of which can be anticipated probabilistically. But if they were, Boltzmann's would be the proper model.

It appears that there's more involved in a living system than can be accounted for on the basis of the physical laws alone.

Now I will sit back and let you tell me why my observation is incorrect, and why Boltzmann's approach to the second law is the sound basis for unravelling the thorny problem, "What is life?" I await your instruction in this matter.

WhiteHorseTrash. Hee hee.

Obligatory ramble:

I once heard from someone "in radio" that back in the early days, there were two NBC networks on radio, "NBC Red" and "NBC Blue".

If I recall the story correctly, there was an announcer on NBC Blue network who capped a station break with the following:

"Here on NBC Blue Network, we get our news from reliable
White Horse Souses" (spoonerism!)

Cheers!

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.