Posted on 02/23/2005 3:47:00 PM PST by DannyTN
Science is typically praised as open-ended and free, pursuing the evidence wherever it leads. Scientific conclusions are falsifiable, open to further inquiry, and revised as new data emerge. Science is free of dogma, intolerance, censorship, and persecution.
By these standards, Darwinists have become the dogmatists. Scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, supported by American taxpayers, are punishing one of their own simply for publishing an article about Intelligent Design.
Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge and is a research fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote an article titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." As Mr. Meyer explained it to WORLD, his article deals with the so-called Cambrian explosion, that point in the fossil record in which dozens of distinct animal body forms suddenly spring into existence. Darwinists themselves, he showed through a survey of the literature, admit that they cannot explain this sudden diversity of form in so little time.
Mr. Meyer argued that the need for new proteins, new genetic codes, new cell structures, new organs, and new species requires specific "biological information." And "information invariably arises from conscious rational activity." That flies in the face of the Darwinist assumption that biological origins are random.
Mr. Meyer submitted his paper to the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History. The editor, Rick Sternberg, a researcher at the museum with two Ph.D.s in biology, forwarded the article to a panel of three peer reviewers. In scientific and other academic scholarship, submitting research to the judgment of other experts in the field ensures that published articles have genuine merit. Each of the reviewers recommended that, with revisions, the article should be published. Mr. Meyer made the revisions and the article was published last August.
Whereupon major academic publications—Science, Nature, Chronicles of Higher Education—expressed outrage. The anger was focused not on the substance of the article, but on the mere fact that a peer-reviewed scientific journal would print such an article.
So the wrath of the Darwinists fell on Mr. Sternberg, the editor. Although he had stepped down from the editorship, his supervisors at the Smithsonian took away his office, made him turn in his keys, and cut him off from access to the collections he needs for his research. He is also being subjected to the sectarian religious discipline of "shunning." His colleagues are refusing to talk to him or even greet him in the hallways.
His supervisors also staged an inquisition about Mr. Sternberg's religious and even political beliefs. Mr. Sternberg, who describes himself as a Catholic with lots of questions, has filed a case alleging discrimination not just on the grounds of religion but "perceived" religion.
Critics of Mr. Sternberg say that the article should not have been published because the American Association for the Advancement of Science has proclaimed that Intelligent Design is "unscientific by definition." As Mr. Meyer points out: "Rather than critique the paper on its scientific merits, they appeal to a doctrinal statement."
Historically, said Mr. Meyer, science has sought "the best explanation, period, wherever the evidence leads." But now the scientific establishment is requiring something else: "the best materialistic explanation for phenomenon." That rules out non-materialistic explanations from the onset, demanding adherence to the worldview that presumes the material realm is all that exists.
David Klinghoffer broke the story of Mr. Sternberg's mistreatment in The Wall Street Journal. The attempts to discredit him, Mr. Meyer said, have resulted in hundreds of scientists from around the world requesting and downloading the paper (available from www.discovery.org/csc/).
Mr. Meyer said that many scientists secretly agree with elements of Intelligent Design but are afraid to go public. Critics tried to force Mr. Sternberg to reveal the names of the peer reviewers—which are supposed to remain anonymous—but he refused. Darwinists shifted the discussions to evolution as a worldview, while avoiding its admitted failures to account for what Darwin purported to explain, namely, the origin of species.
The virulence of the attempts to suppress Intelligent Design demonstrates the Darwinists' insecurity. "You don't resort to authoritarianism," observed Mr. Meyer, "if you can answer it."
Well then the explanation must be easy to restate, eh?
What thing exactly would you like me to restate?
If you like, I will restate Michael Behe's IC argument, and then describe a refutation of it, in my own words.
Or if you want something else, say so now. I don't want to spend a half an hour writing something off-subject.
"Now how'd THAT evolve? "
Allelic fractoids of hydrologic framatides combined with
colloidal lamasticons.
You sure it wasn't desquamulated mycobolates?
Muleteam1
For example we can design a social system that will evolve fairly predictably (the normal classroom is one such design, a US High School is another, a major sports fanchise another, the kid's soccer teams I've seen the same -- basic design producing similar outcomes, yet different years, kids, and towns), or a chemical reaction, or a mixture of chemical reaction and mechanical devices (a petro-chemical plant, for example). We can even design the systems to be adaptive. To react to changes in desirable fashions.
In each of those examples there's plenty of randomness -- and simple physics, simple chemistry, simple mechanics. In each there's not only a original designer -- there's the designer and trained operational staff who make constant adjustments.
Examined in the small, in its parts, a evolutionist might hypothesize that the system evolved its own coplexity. Especially the chemical and social systems.
So explain the eyes. What shows they were NOT designed?
How deep is any proof that they "just evolved"?
BTW, you haven't answered Sternberg's rebuttal of the slander you made against him. The Board's Letter states the facts as they want them presented -- note that they do not drop into the (delusions-of-all-knowing-grandeur) slander of "Liar!" you seem to make against Sternberg. That letter is dated 7 September year last. Sternberg's last update to his Statement of Facts is 3 October of year last.
That is precisely the point. Nothing can ever rule out intelligent design. It's not falsifiable.
Maybe you are right.
"What shows they were NOT designed?"
AAAACCCCHHHH! I just found out my computer was not designed.
Oh the horror!
Nothing is "falsifiable" to the most extreme of scrutiny. (Excluding mathematical, geometric and logical proofs which are abstract, and all things considered all such abstract proofs are tautological.) What is a reasonable standard of proof? Depends on the application, but nearly all useful applications are well-served by proofs "beyond a resonable doubt".
Irreducible complexity. Negative (Shannon) entropy.
__________________________________________
I see. Yet not irreducible enough nor negative enough to prevent the alleged Designer from somehow coming into being, no? That would appear to be a fatal contradiction to this idea to me.
The theory of evolution is stalled in the 19th Century
Maybe so, but putting a pair of Groucho Marx glasses on Creationism and trying to pass it off as science doesn't strike me as a very forward thinking notion either.
Well, good luck with your theory. Honestly, I'd like it to be true. Tangible physical evidence of God would be the most profound discovery in history.
The BSE did issue a statement saying their council wouldn't have approved it. But that was only after the evolutionists got their panties wadded in knots.
And as far as the AAAS and their anti-ID resolution, you only need to go to the "policy" section of their website to see how liberal of an organization they are. They are pro-Arab, Pro-Europe, Anti-war, pro-globalization.
One piece of evidence is the poor design of the human eye and the good design of the hawk eye.
I guess it depends how intelligent you think the particular designer you are talking about is. If you think it is God Almighty, you are insulting Him.
I have so rebutted it. Sternberg tells us WHY he didn't show the material to an associate editor. But the fact remains, he never showed the material to an associate editor. Ergo, he broke the rules. It doesn't matter if he says he had a reason for breaking the rules, he broke the rules just like I said.
Not so. Here is the statement: (click on it once you arrive at their page)
Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.
Well, obviously then Sternberg is telling the better truth, because his was more recent. Likewise, this post is more recent than the one it was made in response to, so you will have to acknowledge its correctness.
LOL. Whatever.
Thanks for the ping!
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.