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
You are a more intelligent ass than your critics, at least today.
Newton's law still holds, by virtue of the correspondence principle. Which goes something like: The new theory must reduce to the old under the same conditions.
Re: apples
There is no theory of apples. Apples are described. Those neurons are holding a description, not a theory. I'm sure you are just trying to make the point though, that theories and descriptions are representations of reality, not the reality itself.
Theories are laws governing phenomena, or models of reality that are composed of those laws. The models are always mathematical constructions. Being that the theory governs reality, anyone can test it. It must be falsifiable and not contradict other valid theories.
Descriptions are fuzzy. Theories are not and they have mathematical form like F=ma, or E=mc2.
In a sense, maybe, but in this case I was responding to a specific allegation with an appropriate, to-the-point response.
In case it has somehow escaped your attention, the anti-evolutionists on these threads do an awful lot of claiming that there is "no evidence for evolution", that evolution is "not a science", that evolution is "empty" or a "house of cards" or "a theory in crisis" and is about to come crashing down any day now, that it's "only a theory" (in the sense of "guess"), that it "can't be tested", "can't be falsified", "doesn't make predictions", "can't be replicated", "can't be observed", "denies reality", blah blah blah blah blah.
In short, one of the anti-evolutionists' favorite mantra is to repeat the creationist *LIE* that there's really "nothing to" evolutionary biology, that it's just an empty suit masquerading as "real" science and there's actually "no" evidence for it. (How many hundred examples would you like me to repost here?)
The recent "even my nine-year-old can see that it's nonsense" post was just more of the same -- the implication is that evolutionary biology is such a ridiculous, empty shell that even little children can see through it.
In reply to that sort of allegation it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE to respond with "elephant hurling". The point is, "since you say this topic is so unsupported and insubstantial, perhaps you'll realize what an idiot you're being when I stampede this herd of elephants in your direction -- does *THAT* feel 'insubstantial'? And that was just a tiny, tiny fraction. There's plenty more where that came from, if you feel like persisting in your ignorant proclamations."
In short, as long as anti-evolutionists persist in pretending that there's "nothing to see" in evolutionary biology, it's entirely appropriate to show them that even a *sliver* of the field is actually overwhelmingly huge, and beyond their level of knowledge.
Look, I've made endless posts responding to "evolution is empty" accusations with "no it isn't, it's supported by overwhelming evidence and endless studies", but somehow that just bounces off the anti-evolutionists' foreheads with a sharp "ping". So fine -- if I have to hit them with a sledgehammer, if I have to stampede them with all the elephants in Africa just to get through to them for a change, so be it. Maybe *then* they'll stop saying these stupid things ad infinitum.
And if even just one anti-evolutionist says, even to himself, "ummm, it seems there's more to this subject than I was led to believe", and tones down the outright LIE of the "evolution is empty" mantra so that those of us who *do* know something about this topic don't have to keep responding to the same old dishonest horsecrap fifty times a day, then I've accomplished something worthwhile.
The questions remains, though (and my past experience does not lead me to be optimistic) -- is even a single one of you folks that smart?
And to start he had only his brother to follow him. After doing miracles which were witnessed by many, he had more follow him.
If fact Jesus contradicted the established witnesses of that day.
The witnesses for Jesus started hundreds of years before he was born, then after he was born the witnesses were John the baptist and his followers, then the apostles Jesus chose to witness his works, the many who came to see him witnessed his miracles. No, Jesus fulfilled the witnesses that came before he was born as well as the witnesses that came after and his words never contradicted scripture.
Someday you may actually read the bible with understanding. The objections you have are those of a child, when in fact men over the centuries have raised these. You must think that believers never raise the questions you raise. If so, you are wrong.
Theories are a way of predicting what we will witness.
Speculation which I made clear.
I think you just made this up.
:-} Certainly not out of whole cloth. It is simply my hypothesis on why such a smart scientist developed a theory on general relativity and then wouldn't go where the theory, and his equations, took him.
Einsteins papers and other writings indicate that he wanted a solution that was static.
Yeah, I've said that about ten times up thread but it never hurts to repeat it. The problem is that general relativity did not take him there. He fit the science to his a priori assumptions. My question is why? You got an answer, I'd love to hear it.
After discussions with Hubble, Einstein accepted an expanding universe.
Right, which doesn't answer the question of why he modified his theory to fit his a priori assumptions.
Given what I said in #443:
Theories are laws governing phenomena, or models of reality that are composed of those laws. The models are always mathematical constructions. Being that the theory governs reality, anyone can test it. It must be falsifiable and not contradict other valid theories.
That is always possible, and failure to predict an observation correctly, renders the theory deficient, or outright wrong.
A theory is not however, limited to just predicting what will be witnessed. It is a physical law as above.
Darwinists attacks on God are attacks aimed at Western Culture and, hence, on Christianity and it adherents.
The constant comes from the solution to a differential equation. You have to go with what you have to assign a value to it. Until you know better, you only have what you have to work with.
Uh, it is not the Darwinists that are attacking God, it is the religous fantatics that are attacking modern science.
LOL.
The static universe was also Newton's assumption and most people's until Hubble. Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to agree with the then-accepted theories. After discussions with Hubble (much later), Einstein changed his mind. You could have just looked these things up; they are not secret nor particularly hard to get.
True enough but Lemaitre tried to convince him and AE was having none of it a couple of years before Hubble.
Anyone who is the least bit familiar with either Einstein or the history of astronomy should know this.
Even us low IQ blue collar guys can know this stuff. Amazing eh?
This stuff isn't secret.
No but the fact that AE was a socialist with a distinct dislike, some might even say hatred, of soldiers and a pacifist post holocaust who stated he would rather be chopped to pieces than bear arms, is pretty well hidden.
Not my kinda guy but very, very smart. Maybe even as smart as some on these threads.
BTW, do you guys take classes in condescension?
An off-topic question here, since you bring up this topic.
Furthermore, I will admit openly that I don't have the slightest clue, and am seeking further information.
Has anyone considered the relation of Hox genes to metastatis in cancer?
Cheers!
Not when Amdahl's Law bites you on the Ass!
Full Disclosure: Emacs sucks! FORTRAN and vi forever! ;-)
We (Creationists) don't control peer-reviewed journals, YET! The only aspersions I am casting is toward comments like the ones quoted below. I can honestly say that I have never purposefully mislead anyone on this forum. I have apologized a number of times for misapprehending a fact, or what someone meant. But I have never tried to stifle someones opinion. That is what I consider unfair tactics by these Evolutionists.
"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."
"'My conclusion on this,' McDiarmid said, 'was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part.'"
P.S. I am not blaming anyone on this forum for stifling. It is why I so enjoy spending time here. We have a very open forum of discussion. general_re, I am not calling you a Brown Shirt, only that you are "sided" with what I consider Brown Shirts. You in no way have withheld my speech, and I hope to clarify that I was not making that claim. I sincerely apologize if it came across that way.
That's Buddism. In the bulk of the post too.
Hawking limits the universe to what can be seen. He does not include what can not.
"Most theists, like me, see personality in God also, but that is not important for this debate."
Sure it is. That's the intelligent force variable-the I in "ID".
"Shannon information"
Ah, how long did the pub stay open before this info was published? Just kidding. It's a statistical theory that is not applicable. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.IT/0410002
"The point of ID is to use an accepted scientific definition of information ("contingency, complexity, and specification") to measure it. Doing so, it also determines that information cannot be created because it is inverse with entropy, and the laws of thermodynamics apply to limit it.
No. The physical laws govern everything. Thermodynamics has little to do with it and the laws were never bent.
"Therefore, without defining God as other than "All Being", we conclude that the enigma of information's origin is a transcendent function holographically present in every timeslice of the universe."
Obfuscation will get you nowhere. The physics govern what is. There is no transcendent func. Those are objects whose variables are the number of hands and various vibrational frequencies.
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.