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
Can natural occurrences explain how planes fly?
At one time man thought not. Then we learned those principles. That is science. To take us in the direction of knowledge, not to shut us off to "God did it". If we took that attitude, you would not be posting tonight. More than likely your genetic train would have been broken long ago and you would not exist.
I am also a believer in ID/Creation. Since neither evolution not ID/Creation can be duplicated and thus not proved with 100 percent certainty, a degree of faith is required to believe in either model (they are not theories, as you must realize). Without the possibility of proving either model, one is left to examine the evidence. There is plenty of evidence to casts serious doubts on the evolution model; so much that it would take a great deal of faith to believe it offers a rational explanation.
ID/Creation cannot be proven in a positive sense. While I may seem far-fetched to many on the surface, having faith in it is a viable position if for no other reason than that the statistical odds against evolution are so great as to be incomprehensible.
This does nothing to 'prove' ID/Creation, but if evolution is eliminated, it leaves ID/Creation as the only viable possibility, unless someone can come up with another possibility; one i have yet to see put forth.
Aside from this, my belief in ID/Creation rests primarily with the consistencies and historical truth of the Bible that are so persuasive, at least in my mind, that belief in ID/Creation isn't much more of a stretch. Sure, believing in ID requires some faith, but not nearly as much faith as belief in evolution.
And the creationists say we have foul mouths. It must be the It must be the Lord's day.
Well, points for style anyway -- that one had a flavor of the good old-fashioned fire and brimstone. Can't you just hear William Jennings Bryan delivering that one in his prime?
Please explain how consciousness came to be.
Oooookay... This one's so over the top I suspect a parody, but if you're really serious, post #158 is next on your reading list.
No parody mate. The time is up for bullshit theories of the universe and how it all works.
Feel free to show where I've done that.
Denver Colorado
Founded: 1859
Altutude: 5332
Population: 531,105
Total: 538296
Can science study anything that isn't a natural occurance? Can you point to anything in physics, biology, astronomy, geology, or chemistry that isn't the result of assuming that phenomena are regular?
Temper, temper, dear scholar.
You call a creationist's claims absurd, yet employ the very same tactic; namely asserting your belief as an unassailable fact. Am I to simply accept this italicized claim? Is your "proof" buried somewhere in your mountain of links?
I guess you have given me a little light reading to peruse while I'm waiting for the worms . . .
It is not the part of a free people to discard matters of reason or faith for the sake of political expedience, or out of a concern for what other people think. If this is the motivation behind those who promote the philosophy of evolution as a necessity in the basic science classroom, then they may kindly take their position next to that of the Taliban.
Meanwhile there is no such thing as a "theory of evolution." There are not enough scientific facts to back it up. What you have is a philosophy couched in scientific terms, for it is nothing more than a hopeful recapitulation of history that is not, and cannot be, the object of empirical science. Even a little child knows that just because two things look the same they do not necessarily have a common source. Evolution, insofar as it attempts to tell history beyond what has been recorded by man, does not deserve to have the word "theory" associated with it.
Educated fools are nothing new. Let them keep their philosphies in a classroom of their own so the curious can partake as they wish, but please do not consider the rest of the world stupid for rejecting the charade. 1
1 Fester Chugabrew 1/30/2005 Freep City
Don't hold your breath. The lurkers (and Democrat quote-miners) can draw their own conclusions.
Then "whoo, boy..."
The time is up for bullshit theories of the universe and how it all works.
Okay, thanks for the bulletin. If I see any "bullshit theories of the universe and how it all works" pass by, I'll be sure to tell them. I think I might have caught a whiff of one in the vicinity of post #749, though.
I wondered if that might be what he meant.
I've never seen dark matter or anti-matter either and I doubt if he has either.
But that don't mean that I don't believe in them. There are a lot of good scientist working on it that know a lot more about it than I do.
I have respect for anyone who works hard and is honest whether he shines shoes or is rocket scientist.
My problem starts when some one who is supposed to be a scientist someone who is supposed to seek the truth starts to promote theory as absolute truth or disagrees with the beliefs of another simply because it doesn't agree with his personal bias's.
A large amount of the content of the Bible has been proved true by archaeologist in the last couple hundred years .
Scientist have even used it's content to make archaeological discoveries.
No book in the history of the world has been so scrutinized as it.
There have even been scientists and doctors who have set out to prove it wrong who ended up believing it the be the word of God.
I myself have read thousands of books on all kinds of subjects but in a over forty year study of the Bible I have found no other written word that makes the tremendous claims that it makes and then proceeds to stand up to them.
If you approach a serious study of it in the proper spirit you can spend a life time and never even come close to exhausting the truths in it.
This alone tells me that it is from beyond our time domain.
God in his word says that He proves that it is from Him by the fact that he tells then end from the beginning and that no other so called God can do this.
I have not found It to be wrong.
I have found it to be misquoted, misunderstood and parts of it not understood yet because it is not time. But I have not found it to be wrong. Only a lack of understanding on my part or others.
Now if someone has not engaged in a complete and through study of it they should not condemn those [or it]before they do.Most who dispute it's claims have never even opened or at the most used it for a paper weight.
It has laid out the whole history of Israel several thousand years in advance and most of it can be verified by scientific and secular history. There are still more prophecies yet to come. The next is the mess in the middle east between Israel and the nations around it that nobody has been able or will be able to solve. Well it's going to be.
Even if you choose not to believe that there is a God it is a fascinating study of history and a people's struggle and accurate predictions that will astound.
The Iliad is "right" about Troy. Is it reliable about the Greek Gods?
I have no great impulse to prove the Bible wrong. But I don't think all of it is literal history, any more than the parables are literal history.
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.