Done!
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
Who was Cain's wife's mother?
Easy to tell when the creationists are losing it.
For me, I just went down the lines of intellectual attack with a well-sharpened and hardened sword of cynicism until there was nothing left. Nothing could be be believed, nothing could be proven.
Evereything shattered and crushed -- every belief, every fact a vanity. A mite of dust all was. I was then just a surfer of the waves of currency, caring only to stay on top of my board -- for I dislike drowning, and I found I loved life. Survival instinct. The difference between Camus and Satre.
With age I found I liked people too, and loved them, despite my strongly developed cynic's detachment.
I tried helping people -- little things, saving lifes at risk of my own and all that. I suffered and hung with it.
For me there was no god -- not Science, not Logic, not Church, not Despair, not G-d, Himself. How could I accept ANY of them -- my intellect's sword had erradicated every one.
You see Ichysaurus has replied to me fore and aft of your post -- he worships Science, it is his god at nonce. He thinks he has lampooned me for the sake of his god. Yet he reads his own imagination of me, and not me. Yes I studied 1850's mathematics, and 1970's too. High level stuff, my footing is sure as a goat's on the mountain.
I understand algebra -- my teachers included some of the best in the world. And I didn't need a Godel or a broken Turing machine to tell me what I had already come to understand, that the final proof is outside any box. And so too the First Postulates.
With age, with the age granted me, thank G-d, some providence gave me to pursue the search for Proof again. I was tickled by Roger Penrose's work, by fractals, by numbers so innumerable no algorithm or description could ever touch them -- the modern Zeno. And I took up that search again -- that it was, with age's wisdom, *intuitively* more likely there was a G-d than not. I came to find that intiution is not necessary -- acceptance is for ,,,
Truth sings to the bared Soul.
Takes a lot more faith to believe in one guy setting around on an island with a scratch pad looking at a lizard than a Bible full of proven historical facts and eye witnesses.
For starters, it is condescending. It assumes those whose opinions you are critical of are somehow not thinking individuals, that you are somehow smarter. It is less than a sophomoric attitude. It is, well, junior.
I am not quite sure what your point in making such a statement can be. It can not be with the intent to sway people to your side, to educate them to accept your view. It is offensive and people rarely respond to that.
And anyone looking in on the discussion that might be swayed is going to see your accusation as lazy. It does not explain anything. It only makes a declarative statement without the least bit of support.
If you really believe you are smarter than those who disagree with you but (1) do nothing to explain to them why or (2) believe it without having done any assessment of their intellectual capabilities, then you really are not as smart as you might think you are. That is only a large measure of arrogance.
Your approach may sit well in your mind but rarely if ever is it accepted in anyone else's. Even those that agree with you will think of you as correct but a little twit just the same.
Of course, you are not a twit. You have studied the issue. That I feel rather certain about. And probably a very intelligent person. So, don't be so lazy. Explain yourself. Contribute to the discussion and the learning.
But if you are here only to throw barbs. Well, there are other more appropriate places where you can go to make yourself feel good besides doing it here in public.
And all the aggravtions and frustrations do not magically disapper. Maybe they are tougher, even. Hard to say. It is just very comfortable and happy to know they have a reason.
Done!
Thanks. Somehow that monkey seems more dignified than what it supposedly becomes after that drink.
Uh, that was geometry, not algebra you posted the "postulate" on.
You are the arrogant one that has not read any of the very long postings providing details and explanations on evolution. The religious fanatics have been given loads of explanations which they reject completely.
The number "4.5 billion years" (or in Sagan's case, "4.5 BuhBuhBuhBillion years") is thrown out as if it were something approaching eternity and therefore almost anything is possible. But that isn't science, it's myth-making just as surely as someone making up religious stories. Where is the math? If the math doesn't work, the mechanism doesn't work. If you don't have the math, you don't have the argument.
Believe me, I am not the arogant type.
And on the reply above, you make my point exactly. Someone does not accept your point so you resort to ad hominem attack? If they have rejected your explanations completely, it could be because you were not convincing, you did not make a good case or they are so entrenched in their beliefs they are not willing to consider another view.
And why are you getting testy with me? I simply answered your question. I'm trying to offer you a little advise, to be nice, and you are jumping down my throat.
I would venture to guess that it is not your views that are being rejected as much as it is that no one is willing to consider them because or your attitude.
And yet there is evidence, even on this thread, that his statement was true. One side cannot seem to understand that the Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life.
And I backed up my assessment by quoting you. Your language would have fit right in at the inaugural protests. Congratulations.
That's not what I said, and you know it. Or, maybe you don't. I've noticed an inability in you to actually understand concepts more complex than black-or-white. Let's try this again: Evolution does not deal with "higher" or "lower," it simply deals with adaptability to environment. A "germ" may be more adapted to certain environments than a human being is; the converse may also be true.
Response: "Who was Cain's wife's mother?"
Obviously, Eve. Why do evolutionists have such trouble grasping the obvious?
Sounds like a disagreement over terms, something to be defined for the purposes of discussion. Not something to start throwing spears over. If someone has not studied evolution to the point that you have, certainly they are not going to have the same handle on the terminology. Either you have to explain it or adapt your language to fit the discussion, make sure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
Actually, your bringing up the point of Evolution vs. the Origin of Life is a discussion I might find interesting. But not if one of the professors is going to start calling me names and telling everyone else I am some sort of fanatic because I don't get it.
Do you see my point?
Yeah it is hard to imprison all the homosexuals and burn all the porn under secular rationales so you need to "scientifically" establish a certain view of Christianity in order to get people on your side. But consider that you actually feel it necessary to scientifically establish the truth of the Christian worldview - wouldn't God be capable of providing all the scientific proof necessary.
This is another scientific theory that was just proved wrong a few months ago by the re- election of President Bush .
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.