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
I mean, of course, the negative entropy required...
Here, listen awhile -- whether you "believe" in your keyboard or not, whether there's a whole State Unveristy full of non-believers who deny the truth of your keyboard's existance right across the street, that keyboard is still there. It is. Not the belief or the non-belief, the numbers of believers, the numbers of non-believers, the number and ingenuity of the torture machines of the inquistors, the magnicence and marvelous edifices and icons of the faithful -- all in support or in denial of your keyboard, will have an iota of difference in whether that keyboard is there or not.
Now of course, to be practical with a mere keyboard and all this religious warfare over its existance it is unlikely for the keyboard to survive. If one side is stronger -- the deniers -- they will destroy it, wipe it out, eradicate it and all memory of it. That just has to happen once in history. It is only a mere keyboard, remember.
And if your side is stronger -- the "keyboard believers" -- why it is likely you would enshrine the keyboard and gold plate it and remove it from the essential and instrinsic thing keyboarding function it was meant to be. Instead you will venerate and adore it as some mystical object too Holy to use. By placing your keyboard on a Holy Pedestal you will have ruined it, destoyed it in a diferent way -- destroyed it by removing it from the use it came into existence for.
So stop "believing" and instead accept the thing for what it is.
There are several hypotheses, but they have not been sufficiently tested yet so as to attain the status of theory. These hypotheses are very hard to test, so I doubt we'll have a good theory for quite some time.
It means you can't support your allegation.
When one Holy Warrior is trolling for suckers, what matters is the "witnessing," not whether the witnessing is false. It is evidently very, very bad form--more or less inexecusable--for one Holy Warrior to undercut another in the act of recruiting for the Holy War (or, for that matter, in public combat with the Heathen Foe).
That's why you almost never see it happen. This "science" is rotten to the core.
I submit to you quotes from the original article where #1 entered God into the discussion.
"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."
Space aliens?
Exactly. We see that "trick" all the time from the creationists. They will refer to some reputable scientist and then provide a link thinking that most lurkers will never bother to click on the link. They when they are busted, they say as you said above claiming innocence. You are busted twice.
Klaatu barada nikto!
You 'busting' me makes as much sense as Dawkins' climbing Mt. Impossible by going up the back way.
Mom's still working on the concept of "just because you post the article, that doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms of discourse". So, apparently, if I post an article that happens to mention, in passing, that babies taste best if you roast them fat side-up, at 325 degrees for 15 minutes per pound, as long as I say "I don't want to talk about eating babies!", you're not allowed to mention it. Just FYI.
WildTurkey: It means you can't support your allegation.
I do very much appreciate RobRoy’s desire not to fight the same battles over and again - as I imagine others on your "side" such as PatrickHenry, Ichneumon and VadeRetro would also. It takes a lot of reading to find a post with something new or particularly informative in an area which is of special interest to an individual Freeper or Lurker.
For instance, here are some points which I believe most of us would agree have been pretty much “settled” over the years but nevertheless get argued over and again:
That Darwin did not address abiogenesis in his theory, nor did he define “life” at all much less address how it came to be.
That the ”theory of evolution” does not include abiogenesis v biogenesis.
That the term ”evolution” reaches to include all kinds of gradual change over time.
That the Designer in Intelligent Design arguments could be God, collective consciousness or alien.
That the arguments for Panspermia are very similar to the arguments for Intelligent Design.
That there are theologians who accept evolution, e.g. the Catholic church.
That there are atheists/agnostics who do not accept evolution, e.g. Panspermia supporters such as Crick.
Some Christians base their theology on Adam being the first ensouled man.
Some Judeo/Christians base their understanding of Genesis 1 at approximately 6000 years from our space/time coordinates plus 6 days from the inception (big bang, relativity, inflationary theory) space/time coordinates.
Some Christians see the difference between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis allowing for billions of years.
Some Judeo/Christians see Genesis 1 through 3 speaking of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm.
But even there, the discussion tends to fall neatly based on the worldview each Freeper brings to the table, e.g. one's view of what is “all that there is”:
Truly, I wish there were some way that we could likewise organize matters on the generalized (and typically, quite large) evolution threads so that it would be easier to “fast forward” through the boilerplate.
Indeed, if for no other reason than because it seems to me that much of the frustration arises from addressing the same points over and over and over and over and...well, you get the idea ;)
If he has proof of false science being taught, I will be the first to work to fix it.
So WHAT!
So what? He's earned his bones, and is a valued FReeper. You are still a trouble making newbies, and don't you sass Alamo-Girl, take her advice to heart!
Forget it. We will never get past JohnnyM's proclamation that evolution is impossible because it is against the literal words of Genesis (according to J's interpretation of the literal words).
How do you get past "Go" when the article posted talks about God vs. Evolution.
How do you get past "Go" when we are continually refered to websites that prove evolution is impossible because it is contrary to the bible.
How do you get past "Go" when we are continually bombarded with the false science of the ID preachers that intentionally foul basic science theory inorder to promote their DVD's. No. Perhaps you should send this message to the ID'ers. It is them that want to keep the fight on that level; we are only responding to the attacks.
With regard to false statements appearing in science textbooks, I also have seen such lists. As I recall there was an organization or group reading textbooks for that very purpose. I don't recall if the group had an ideological or theological agenda, but I will see if I can find the link for you.
We all almost always agree in principle - it's the details that cause so much friction around here ;)
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.