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
That would be Dennett with two 't's, the Tufts philosopher? Or some guy called Dennet? And if you're familiar with his books, how come you can't spell his name?
If your "proof" were possible
It is possible, it just isn't ready for publication. Prof says, in red ink, that the abduction needs to address all the questions. That will require more work.
That is because they are separate topics. They are neither contradictory nor supplementary nor mutually exclusive.
Galileo was a crackpot with a couple of lucky formulations.
Science will end except for a few dilletantes and philosophers once we move off-planet and the State loses its stranglehold on individuals.
I will, after it has been published and milked for as much revenue as reasonably possible.
How many times a day do we hear this? Just wait, eventually, sooner or later, some day, all of biology will be explained by means of physical causes, and physical causes alone!
Fortunately, not all scientists are willing to hold their breath while they wait for this grand culmination to occur. Here's Dr. Grandpierre's view of the matter:
"When physics applies the maxim of ignorance, and ignores biological inputs to fit the closure thesis, it misses the main point of the problem. Moreover, the physicalist dogma that 'one day we will be able to determine the actual behavior of living organisms by exclusively physical methods when all the physical details of the most complex organisms of the universe will be clarified' merely postpones the aim to solve the scientific questions of biology by plausible and simple scientific methods to an indeterminately distant future. We find this attitude as decelerating the development of science. Referring to the 'impenetrable complexity' instead of real explanation does not seem to differ from the methods of the 'occult sciences' -- since it plays the role of a Jolly Joker at all places where we need scientific explanations instead."
He also writes this, so very germane to our present discussion:
"The tricky machinery of life is not contained in the laws of thermodynamics. And it is just this tricky machinery that contains the large amount of information necessary for life. Berkovich notes: 'The functioning of living systems has little to do with physics and chemistry. It is a problem of information control' (Berkovich, 2003, 2). This implies the ability of biological information to direct the behavior of cells utilizing the smallest amount of energy. All living systems manifest energy transformations from numerous microscopic motions converging into macroscopic behavior, e.g., as when we write with our hand (Elitzur, 2004). The control processes of living systems act at the molecular scale (Dolev, Elitzur, 1998). Moreover, thermodynamic state functions are macroscopic at the global level of the system; therefore they cannot determine the complex behavior of the cells and of individual molecules. But if there is a relation between energy and manifested biological information, then the astronomical amount of information present in living organisms still needs thermodynamically significant energies to become effective, and so thermodynamics can be really efficient in the study of the nature of life."
When you consider that the human organism is made up of roughly 6*1013 cells, and in each cell more than 105 chemical reactions occur per second, which generally involve localized, "neighbor relations"; and yet the living system is able to organize and integrate all of its astronomically large number of parts distributed throughout its physical extent into one single, dynamic, self-organizing, sensitively-responsive global whole -- well, you've got to figure an enormous amount of information is required. And "information" does not appear to be a physical quantity.
How many times a day do we hear this?
Haven't heard it much since the members of the Vienna School passed on. The style now is that we can't ever get to a final physical explanation. That's what I think, and that State-sponsored science will come to an end without arriving at a final physical explanation.
Radical. Science is the body of peer-reviewed published work. Perhaps science is a passing fad, but this would grease the skids.
How about Annals of Improbable Research which IIRC was formerly known as Journal of Irreproducible Results
/grin
Cheers!
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Why, the rooster came first, he always does...
Otherwise, the egg never gets fertilized ! /grin
Cheers!
Forteans are their own peer-group.
You'd rather discuss my typos than discuss what your darwin-crazed hero said he wanted to do to non-believers
How many times a day do we hear this? Just wait, eventually, sooner or later, some day, all of biology will be explained by means of physical causes, and physical causes alone!
Seems reasonable to me. 100 years ago, we didn't know the medium of genetic information. 50 years ago we had just learned the very basics of that information. Today we know the sequence of the entire human genome, and those of several hundred other organisms.
100 years ago we really didn't know what an enzyme was. 50 years ago we were learning the physical structures of the first enzymes. Today, we're getting close to determining the structure of the entire proteome (all of the proteins that are ever expressed in a living cell.)
100 years ago, we knew a very small part of the chemistry of the living cell. 50 years ago we had worked out the most basic pathways. Today they've coined the word 'metabolome' (the sum total of all the metabolic chemistry of the organism).
We're no more than 20 years away from a complete, mechanistic description of the entire life-cycle of a bacterial cell. That means you will be able to put an E. coli cell into a computer, set it going, and predict everything about it - structure, chemistry, constituents, reproduction, etc., using deterministic physical equations. I doubt any credible scientist doubts this will happen.
Fortunately, not all scientists are willing to hold their breath while they wait for this grand culmination to occur. Here's Dr. Grandpierre's view of the matter: "When physics applies the maxim of ignorance, and ignores biological inputs to fit the closure thesis, it misses the main point of the problem. Moreover, the physicalist dogma that 'one day we will be able to determine the actual behavior of living organisms by exclusively physical methods when all the physical details of the most complex organisms of the universe will be clarified' merely postpones the aim to solve the scientific questions of biology by plausible and simple scientific methods to an indeterminately distant future.
Dr. Grandpierre will likely be proven wrong in his own lifetime.
When you consider that the human organism is made up of roughly 6*1013 cells, and in each cell more than 105 chemical reactions occur per second, which generally involve localized, "neighbor relations"; and yet the living system is able to organize and integrate all of its astronomically large number of parts distributed throughout its physical extent into one single, dynamic, self-organizing, sensitively-responsive global whole -- well, you've got to figure an enormous amount of information is required
On the other hand, the amount of knowledge is increasing exponentially. Computer power is increasing exponentially. It took us less than 100 years from the time we figured out where the genome was, to a complete description of it. As I've said, I doubt it will take us even 20 more years to figure out a single cell.
Scarier still, though, the gaps left for guys like Grandpierre to bloviate about are getting smaller and smaller. We reductionists will inherit the earth, and the last will and testament has already been written.
(Insert obligatory evil laugh here)
You should first get your story straight about what he said. First you claimed he wanted concentration camps. Then zoos. Now it's 'cultural isolation'. For all I know, he thought they should have a good scolding.
Stop lying, and maybe somebody might take you seriously.
for all you know....
that answers a lot of questions
enough for now
A heretic taught by heretics, eh? Like the Nipponese potter's ethic -- they fire their pots with an imperfection, so as not to become too proud of their work. What do the overwhelmingly prideful create that does not fully shatter in the sun? Better a slightly cracked pot.
Where were you when I was five years old and werestling with that question? Well, finally, finally -- that's settled! Thanks.
Let's analyze these statements.
(1) "Life is a willful thing once it achieves a certain level of organization." Granted. But you gloss over the problem of how it gets organized. It seems the attributa potentia ["AP"] are not the cause of the organization. For the AP can be anything, anytime. They are more like the building blocks, or the material, out of which systems both living and non-living are constructed. And what these "AP guys" do basically, following their own instincts I imagine, is simply follow the physical laws. So the question then becomes: Are the physical laws information-rich enough to produce biological behavior? It would appear that the answer to this question is: NO.
Plus i suppose i could mention that to attribute will to what is here an abstraction or totally inexact generalization (or as Yockey might put it, to an algorithm) is to engage in anthropomorphism.
(2) The AP have "been there all along, and will be there long after our sun cools to a cold dark lump...." But there's nothing in this observation to show how they become other than a stochastic process.
(3) Jeepers! You predict the final outcome of our universe here! How am I to understand this as other than a religious statement?
So much to do, so little time.... Thanks for writing, RightWhale.
Which physical laws?
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.