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
Full Disclosure: I only care whether moths eat my wife's sweaters. Otherwise not interested in this particular issue...
I too have some extra time this morning. Meet the Press has John Kerry on. Incredible! This is the most momentous day in the Bush presidency, and they put on that clown.
"Spam" ? More like "facts".
How could your experience be otherwise? What you've described is the very essence of creationism.
OK, I've got a little more time [and patience].
What is your best evidence for darwin's 'theory'?
Please, use your own words if you can.
Probably the grandaddy of all "evolving code" projects: Tierra
Modern "evolving code" project: Avida
Just occurred to me.
If you tweaked an "evolving code" project, so that instead of random mutations to each copy of the code, the codes used genetic algorithms as the tool for modification, propagation, then...
if you ran across a bug you could really, truthfully say
"this f*cking code isn't working!"
BTW what do they do to debug the code, to make sure the parameters / values chosen for mutation rates, etc. are actually being followed?
Cheers!
Well, P.H. at least we agree on politics. Great Day for freedom
Throw a little ammonia and electric sparks in that computer. Maybe it will spring to life.
Although there may be members of the Unification Church who do not believe Reverend Moon to be the second coming of Christ, I think it is fair to say that such people must be a small minority; indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone persevering in the rigorous life of a Unificationist without believing that Sun Myung Moon is to our generation what Jesus was to his.
Do you consider psychology a science?
Oh really? I can think of *one* in the past 140 years
The problem I see is a disingenuousness based upon a true believer mentality.
Ontogeny recapitulates ontogeny, lamarkism, the black and white moths.
Evolutionary theory is filled with historical mistakes.
Early on particle physics had its share of scientists who were wrong, presented artifact etc...
If it had stayed at that level then people would be right to be skeptical of that discipline.
Only the most fervent faithful or person who does not understand the the nature of physical science would equate evolutionary theory as it has been presented and exists today with the hard and mathematically rigourous physical sciences of quantum mechanics.
Right now how many genomes are sequenced?
Actually, that is essentially exactly what is said. Richard Dawkins as the prime example.
I do not understand your need for the disingenuousness, defensiveness or intellectual honesty you put forth.
Not mutually exclusive.
Still, I'd suggest you don't know what either facts or spam are from that response.
Are you saying YOU have no idea, no comprehension, of what you post?
Yes, but are you tenured yet?
;-)
Priceless.
It was not a subtle hint. I had already told him about non-Euclidean geometry and he still came back with the question without specifying.
I don't have a day job I'm retired.
As for your vocation I hope it's not in the scientific field, because it seems you are like most of the mainstream established ones who don't know the difference between a theory and fact.
They claim that Christians are idiots and bigots when there is no more bigoted, or idiotic group on the face of the earth than those who set entrenched in the hollowed halls the scientific community when one of their pet theories is challenged.
They are supposed to be open to new ideas and thought and seekers of truth and facts but when it comes to legitimate challenges to evolution they slam the doors to their minds and seek to ridicule and destroy any and all who threaten.
Like the young scientist with a family at the Smithsonian who has had his office taken away and had career targeted from the sanctimonious scientific bigots simply for a comment questioning this theory.
They take a theory which is nothing more than an opinion with some fancy Ph d's or H2o4's tacked on the guy who uttered it and promote it as scientific established fact.
Then when it might be proved wrong all those who feel threatened because they have hung their ego, career, reputation,personal beliefs and paycheck on it immediately form a lynch mob.
You say Bush won because he was "lucky".
Well if that the case next time we can all just stay home because it's the "lucky" one who is going to win anyway.
Then again that's not very scientific.
I say he won because he had a good campaign strategy,had lot of intelligent people working hard for him making the proper decisions and praying for him.
You know ID.
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.