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
This is the problem guys. You call our Bible and religion a lie.
Something that in six thousand you have been able to prove is so.
Then you want us to accept your own Darwin's Religion of Evolution which you haven't been able to prove in the last hundred years is right.
Yet when we ask that creationism to be fair be taught just along side of evolution in our schools you guys panic .
What are you afraid of? I see all kinds of evidence everyday of the result of ID including this computer I set at.
I have yet to see one thing that evolved from nothing to something to something else on it's own.
So if you guys want to prove to me that evolution is the ticket, pile up a bunch of scrap sheet metal, rubber and plastic in your yard and when it turns into a 1965 mustang convertible call me.
BTW if it turns out to be a Chevy pickup, just do what you normally do when evolution is in trouble.
Just tack on a few billion more years. I'll wait.
The more time I spend here, the more I think that exposing their lies is the best way to expose their agenda. Something is going on. Are these guys trolls for the YEC websites? I wouldn't think true Christians would lie? Or are they just that brainwashed ...
The Sun was created on day one and in Genesis 2 the animals were created AFTER Adam. You remember, to give comfort to him.
You don't understand that b/c you, a hoax supporter, post a list of papers that you like, prepared by other hoax supporters, it doesn't establish that it's evidence? Your claiming it's evidence means exactly - nothing. You and you ilk don't get to decide what constitutes proof. Do you imagine no one knows that "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy?
Please cite where someone has posted that.
Have you ever seen a neutron? I doubt it.
I didn't say I hated JC. You are obviously a troll for the YEC website. No true Christian would bear such false witness.
i'm late to the gate on this thread, and skipped most of the middle, but
Science is theory. It is not fact. It is theory looking for fact. It really makes no pretense of final understanding. It is provisional in its pronouncements because it has been shown over and over again that the theory is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is the process of progress in Science. When a scientist postulates "A" he/she knows that it is unlikely that "A" is the final word on the subject. It is just another bit to add to string of information to ponder. When and if the final fact is found that would be the end of Science.
I welcome this debate and find it very interesting. Each of us must know that the last fact will not be found while we are alive to know it. Each of us must deal with this in our own way.
The bottom line is that the scientist and the non-scientist must ultimately defer to a Belief, which cannot be proved.
Since neither "A" nor "not A" can be proved, we should all discuss these issues with an understanding that it is also possible that the answer is not even in our alphabet yet. IMHO, it is likely that the TRUTH is completely out of the sphere of our knowledge, or even imagination.
Many religions address this problem by postulating God to be beyond our understanding. Science addresses this issue by saying that we don't know yet, but we are still working on it.
The stress between science and religion does not really come from the conception of Cosomological Origins, but from the application and extensions of those conceptions to the more mundane and human level of what do we eat, how do we conduct ourselves, who are our friends and so on.
My attitude is, I don't know. I will not know in this life. Oh well.
Seen a drawing of one.
Are you saying they evolve into something on their own? What to?
Seen a drawing of one. Are you saying they evolve into something on their own? What to?
But I suspect that WildTurkey's actual point had to do with the fact that you've never seen a neutron either, but they provably exist -- just like the evolutionary events you've never personally witnessed.
...and you think we care because...? Furthermore, while "scientism" may be a philosophical position, that doesn't make it a "religion", nor doe syour source say that it is.
Well, what beyond science is truth for you? Can natural occurrences alone account for everything?
Uh, I don't think you will be going to heaven with that pack of lies.
I bet you've seen drawings of space aliens, also.
And the creationists say we have foul mouths. It must be the It must be the Lord's day.
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.