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
Dirty tricks I tell you.
If you can't or won't meet the standards of science, you don't get to call what you're doing "science". Millions of people all over the world manage to live up to that - it only seems to be a select crew of lawyers and theologians that can't seem to manage it around here, and so they demand that science be revised to include theological lawyering. Sorry, but no. Maybe they can come up with some new term for what they do, but "science" is already in use elsewhere.
What Ichneumon tends to present on these threads is far from simple. The occasions where I've tried to comprehend the expositions have begged the question: How do you know?
I do not want to disparage anyone's intelligence, much less those who give their best shot at interpeting the universe and attempt to explain it through natural causes, though I am sure there are cases where my own emotions have resulted in evidence to the contrary. And no, I do not expect an entire discipline to be presented in a paragraph or two.
Frankly, I do not see how the philosophy of evolution can make a strong case without resorting to mental constructs of history, thereby placing itself outside basic, empirical science.
On another note, I do not understand the concern that YEC-types and Evolutionists cannot share the same goals in civil matters and still win they day when it comes to Democrats. I am not at all embarassed to have adherents of the philosphy of evoltution on my side where good government is concerned. What gives?
Unless your reading a gender neutral text.
A definition is a first postulate, too. BTW -- Lines are even stranger in differential geometry -- one gives up on their "line-ness" and instead calls them paths.
All the creationists have to do is to make up some good modules for the religion and philosophy classes discussing ID and take their stickers out of the science class and we can all get along. But we know that the real goal for the creationists is to get evolution out of the science class and that is the problem.
Uh, you mean that "God's Word" has been altered?
What the heck is that?
You would be surprised how many Liberal Jews support the war in Iraq. Steven Spielberg for instance. Most of the Jewish vote Bush got came from those agreeing with Bush's desire to protect the only free loving Democracy in the region.
Christians support Israel because God chose the Jews as the vessel by which He revealed Himself to us. And Jesus loved the Jews; being one Himself.
Click on it!
You evaded the question.
Without the origin of life, there is could never be an origin of species.
Sort of like putting the cart before the horse.
It has been about 35 years since this neurotransmitter was activated for me. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if my brain misfired once, it would again ? Or is the cause and effect in reverse. Is the presence of the neurtansmitter related to the experience ? Is there a physical change being created by a spiritual experience ?
We do know that when people meditate they can change their body chemistry. The bible calls for loving God with our hearts, minds and souls. Its clear even to nonreligious folks that all are connected. So, which is it. Can the effect of a NDE create chemical changes ? Can God use chemistry ?
You mean sort of like how we study how antibiotics kill bacteria before we understand where bacteria first came from ...
Can man create God?
Your dear Mr. Meyer proposes that since science cannot fully explain creation and evolution, that there must be another force, ID working and that evolutionary theory is therefore invalid.
I propose to you, that since you cannot fully explain God, that there must be another explanation and that is that man invented God and that your 'theory' of God is therefore invalid.
You really do have a hair trigger about scripture, don't you and a lack of a sense of humor?
Listen, there are numerous reproductions or scrolls that have the original Hebrew. Translating a document into the English language requires interpretation. It requires understanding the original Hebrew as well as understanding English. Also, as we change the meaning of words even during our lifetimes, the understanding of older translations become difficult.
Congratulations, you win the bigot of the day award.
Men create gods all the time and have more than one. Science for example is a god for many men, as is religion, as is money, as is power just to name a few.
Can man create truth ? No. Truth exists apart from ourselves. Can we know what is true ? Yes, but only through the testimony of witnesses. Can God himself be a witness ? Yes, the triune God can testify and witness to us.
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.