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
Obviously they are since we are here. At least we think we are here.
i think you miss the point Alamo-Girl was making, which i took to be: Precisely because, as an operational principle, Occam's razor is not in thrall to -- "has nothing to do with" -- metaphysical naturalism (or any other "ism" for that matter), anybody can use it to shore up his vision or version of reality. That is to say, Occam's razor is "agnostic" with respect to competing visions and worldviews, and even principles such as the Anthropic Principle. All it requires is that one "boil problems down" to their essential elements, casting out all the "dross" along the way. Perhaps when a metaphysical naturalist or some other thinker employs this tool, the "dross" he is casting away is the pith of the problem. Occam's razor is, in short, perhaps not entirely effective in such cases of restricted evidence.
That's right. A perfect and intricate design with a deliberate flaw, something asymmetrical. As if somone or something might take offense--including the artisan.
It seems very likely to me that Dr. Grandpierre is not in the business of exploiting the remaining gaps so that he can bloviate. It also seems very likely to me that he is as good a historian of science as you are, and possibly a far better one. (He gets all the way back to ancient Greece on occasion; there were some pretty superb thinkers operating back then, as I'm sure you'll recall.) Plus he is not making up this stuff as he goes along: There is a tremendous collegial effort going on here, speaking of the contemporary situation of state-of-the-art science, and also of the ages-long historical evolution of science itself.
Stay tuned!
Any and all of them, taken singly or all together.
Charming, RWP!!! OK, i can get into the spirit of this thing: certainly the last will and testament has been written already. :^) That happens to be an essential Christian understanding -- as you well know. Switching gears into that road (which you yourself suggested would be fun to go down), what is the basis for your saying that reductionists will inherit the earth? Good grief, it seems to me you guys are steadily "reducing yourselves away" into that absolute reduction that spells "impending nothingness."
But oh jeepers, I'm mixing up my science and theology here again.... (At your invitation!)
Thanks for writing, RWP!
It can also be nothing. This is originating power. The power is present from the origin of the matter of the universe. If we insist that the word 'power' be restricted to mechanical use, then we can make up another characteristic word for our AP. Life is made from the matter of the universe and the question becomes whether there is something extra that was introduced that was not inherent in the matter of the universe.
We should not worry about whether intelligence is an attribute of the animal nervous system. Plants also exhibit behavior and can be trained. Plants are slower of course. The nervous system speeds things up, but the things are present in plants already. We can admit that plants have intelligence. Can we take another step and admit that microbes also have intelligence? And then another step toward the mineral world eventually arriving at interstellar nebulae and nearly frozen pools of oily water on Titan?
If we leave it to itself as if we didn't exist. We nearly don't exist in the universe anyway. But, if we exercise due diligence and go forth and multiply per instruction, we may become a significant part of the universe and change the final outcome. Right now we can hardly influence a few acres of dirt to grow food for ourselves. Should we sit on our country estates and wait for the inevitable? We don't have long to wait : earth will be uninhabitable in half a billion years and fairly nasty long before then if we don't get up and do something.
"....what is the basis for your saying that reductionists will inherit the earth?"
His basis? He has performed a brief review of the progress of naturalist thought,
since Dr. E. Darwin wrote his poem 'Temple of Nature',
since M. Shelly read that poem
since M. Shelly witnessed Dr. E. Darwin's experiments, and
since the 18 year old girl wrote Frankenstein,
since Annie Rand loved her cats, but hated her nonkids,
since the USSC ruled that sodomy was constitutionally protected,
a brief review of naturalist thought provides .... 'evidence' that the naturalists are winning ...
But, in truth, he is just angry. All the time, angry (though he would call it cold, calculating rationalism, sprinkled with an intense, normal desire to win).
Why is this? Who knows. But the truth is this: he spends a lot more time on his computer than your average individual, and engages almost exclusively in one activity: slamming Christians.
There is a Christian, or more likely, someone who claimed to be Christian, that caused these pieces of evidence together to be emotionally expoxied all together into something he calls the 'truth' into his heart. This is someone who never writes about his heart, or anyone else's.
Thus, he believes, rationally, the word 'inherit' is fair. Because as a priest of reason his mission is indeed to convert the heathen.
And missionaries do what they do ... because they are called to do so. Who called him?
The anthropic principle, like ID is difficult to disprove. I can't think of any way to test it.
But I disagree with something I think is being inferred from Wolfram, namely that evolution has a direction as a result of initial parameters. I can't prove this is false, but I believe it is.
I don't believe that everything we see in life was inevitable, at least not the large structures and body plans. Different circumstances would have led in different directions, particularly with different timings of catastrophic events.
Just doing some fact checking here. By "E." Darwin did you mean to indicate Charles Darwin's father, Erasmus Darwin? If so, more info, please!!!
I have had quite an interest in the impact of the Frankenstein book for several years now. Somehow, under the radar, the spiritual message of this book has successfully seeped into the consciousness of most western minds ... that we are not 'born' bad.
The original story was indeed that way; the monster was only made, after the world started to mistreat him.
From a Christian perspective, this one story goes a long way to describing how the world, person by person, honestly sees itself.
Indeed, Frankenstein is the deadliest monster thus. Christians, otoh, would say that Dr. Jekyll, Mr Hyde is far more accurate a view of what the monster is in truth.
I couldn't believe it was a literature web site that clued me into the linkage between Shelly, Darwin, Evolution, and then the Grandson and his 'gift' to the world....
Erasmus Darwin (The real source of 'Frankenstein' as well as Evolution)
You did know that William of Occam didn't invent "Occam's Razor," but he did like it so much, he bought the company.
Truly, I am amazed - especially here and now, in the information age - that so many still don't accept that "all that there is" extends beyond the physical. Many believe with all sincerity that there is nothing beyond that which is corporeal.
To illustrate, I’d like to borrow a phrase from RightWhale‘s post 1967 where he says:
On the Plato thread we labored diligently to come up with a definition of life v. non-life v death as the first step in trying to investigate the theory of abiogenesis.
My personal favorite was Shannon information: a thing (in nature) which is successfully communicating is alive, when it ceases to communicate, it is dead. If it never communicated, it is non-life. That particular definition is not prejudiced against dormant life cycles, viruses, prions and such. Jeepers, it is not even prejudiced against non-carbon based life (should any be discovered), etc.
We also discussed the Irvin Bauer and Javor definitions – both of which contain important observations of biological life.
Perhaps someday we shall have an elegant, ideologically neutral, widely accepted, definition of life v non-life v death. And if we do, the definition itself will prescribe whether life is to be known by biochemical criteria or information theory or both (or perhaps something else).
Nevertheless, I believe it is safe to say that one of them will supplant the "happenstance" element of the theory of evolution. My guess is that "natural selection" will remain as a secondary factor. I say that because "natural selection" does not explain complexity at all and the evolution of semiosis (esp. the DNA) "demands" an explanation.
I love the etymology of the word 'hysterical' and its family of words (hysterics, hysteria, etc).
I make it a point to remind particularly skittish women about it! :-)
I am not denying self-organization, but we have a fundamental disagreement about what shapes the outcome. I do not believe it is possible to anticipate need in a complex environment. Selection will still happen.
I happen to believe that evolution and learning are isomorphic processes. This is not some quirky thing I invented. It is widely discussed in behavioral psychology. If this view has any validity, it would not be surprising for evolution to learn to evolve. It is possible that change is not random, but I doubt it is specifically targeted.
This really doesn't require any fundamental change in the way of doing science. It can be studied in the same way that Lamarkianism was studied. It sounds like a variatition on Lamarkianism.
I'll write again what I wrote to metacognative (sic). Try to make a minimal effort to make sure what you're saying is true, and people might take what you say seriously.
Go ahead and continue to take out of context the intent about my remarks regarding the motives of scientists.
I will state again, the scientists I meant are those PhD holding, credentialing granting, PhD committee member types. The priest types who 'own' the definitions of science and its vernaculars, and who profess their faith in their self defined profession, of which, they are professors of.
I said I'd find my own source. Of course, part of my source includes this (courtesy of AG) -
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?.
But, I'd doubt you'd label this a minimal effort.
RWP, more to the point, I'll get a decent source which discusses how the professors I am referring to are essentially incented to be corrupt lackeys of the U.S.Govt. Granted, useful research at times falls out it. But mostly, millions of trees scream out in protest for the useless deaths for research published on paper no one reads or references.
That said, I'd like to reiterate you, and PH's posse all these years on FR, standing watch like good soldiers, are basically leftists in disguise, and specifically, AntiChristian activists.
There is one thing that is missing from these massive evo threads from your side: evidence that your motives are grounded in what you state they are grounded in.
Where are the links, the political links, which discuss in a rational way how folks like yourself are doing the GOP a good service? Where are the articles which discuss why Creationists are bad for the GOP, and how one as a grass roots 'activist' can help?
Where are your references, scholarly references, which discuss why Christians who believe in a 6000 year old earth are going to hurt the 'true' aims of the GOP?
I haven't seen these links on these threads. I have seen an immense amount of 'let's attack nonsensical Christians, because they deserve it'. And you sound just exactly like, and even at times use the same resources as leftists in this fight.
In short, how on earth is it possible, that the biggest help to GWB, the GOP, etc, can be accomplished by expending essentially a nonreplaceable resource, your time, attacking folks who ....... VOTE OVERWHELMING GOP?
A better question is this: how is it possible none of you have logically described why all, not some, all leftist types who are out actively, right now, campaigning to destroy what America is, are NOT worthy of the attention you give Christians here at FR? Why are Christians the biggest threat to the GOP?
Somehow, as targets, we creationists are your most 'natural selection'. It makes sense, if and only if, you are a leftist. But you all claim to love Bush and right thinking! Let's see some rational links to GOP-supporting politicos that describe how this is a wise investment of your political time .... I bet there aren't any. None of you post any of that type of info to these threads....
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.