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
Most likely he has spoken on the phone with Dr. Meyer. But then again, you are with the Brown Shirts; in one out the other.
"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."
If you say it about one, the saying applies to them all. HaHaHaHa (-: peer-reviewed :-)
"'My conclusion on this,' McDiarmid said, 'was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part.'"
You first reference may have some merit, since you clearly have rocks in your head.
Suggesting that cells constrained in some soup containing Iron Sulphate and Nickle Sulphate "likely" contributed to the "evolution" of those cells into diverse life forms is scientifically STUPID!
There is no mechanism DEMONSTRATING such such cause and effect.
EVERY one of those references contain such phrases of scientific certainty as "likely", "perhaps", "probably", "may", and "could have".
They don't "KNOW" any of this!
There is also a significant amount of peer backslapping, substituting as scientific "proof".
Explain why.
I'd like to ask all of you evolutionist to do a little experiment...investigate some of the NDE (Near Death Experience) cases. Especially the one's from little kids.
Since you don't have any problem with believing that we have evolved to get to this point...it shouldn't be a problem to listen to all the folks that have been documented to have died and came back to tell us what they saw. You can think of it as our next step in Evolution.
And if you have a problem with believing NDE's....why?
Here's a Pro & Con link on NDE's to get you started:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html
For those of you undecided about what to believe when it comes to believing in Evolution VS Creation.
God told us how we got here...how to live our lives while we're here...where we're going when we die...through the Bible(Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth). God leaves it up to each one of you to decide what you want to believe.
...bear false witness ... ?
Witness this:
Creation out of nothing with nothing ?
Sure, why not.
Oh, really? And what do you based that likelihood on? Tea leaves? Goat entrails?
I don't know any such thing, and neither, I suspect, do you. And even if he has, Meyer himself is not exactly a neutral observer, now is he?
But then again, you are with the Brown Shirts; in one out the other.
When your "argument", such as it is, could have been lifted straight from the Code Pink playbook, you should probably take that as a sign that you're wandering off the reservation. "Brown shirts"? And what does that make you, if not an ideological clone of the left, willing to let bad science in because of how it makes you feel, rather than stand up for some sort of standards of scholarship? Touchy-feely, let's let it in regardless of how bad it is because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside - please. Spare me.
Brown shirts, feh. Trust me - you don't want to go down that road, friend.
But this is the point is it not? Ultimately, the whole of creationism is a political movement to reestablish the dominance of evangelical Christianity as a political force in determining social policy. Otherwise, I can't see the point of it.
But, But, But ... you mean it is God's word and we don't even know when it was written? And in what order?
A little bit of "learning" just puts them deeper in the hole. I got him in #137.
I didn't. I told him that there were plenty of good explanations if he were to just get his head out of the creationists' websites.
Wow! That's a lot. Too bad there is no one around to help the kid wade through all that.
If that were true, we wouldn't have the light bulb ...
I backed up my claims with inflammatory quotes from those on your side; and you respond thusly. You may wish to recheck your feeling meter.
The Code Pink playbook doesn't permit straightforward quotes, they are to hard to twist. My point would have been just as powerful with only the quotes and without any comments from me. Always indicting. And yes, the context is easy to apprehend.
{But the creationists sit in grim silence, rolling their eyes, like Hillary during a speech by the President.)
If you really believe a human cannot be sensibly ranked above a germ...we are disconnected.
America was a christian creation country for all its' history and did quite well.
Which do you prefer?
To leave God out of it, or to keep our minds open?
You oughta know. You rely on wrong answers.
You have more in common with Hillary than "creationists" do.....
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.