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
Sorry, I'm at work. No more posting till evening :-(
Sad Cheers!
(...or happy, depending on how annoying I've been!)
Indeed, the Great Commandment is to love God absolutely. And the second is to love our neighbor unconditionally. Everything - the law, the prophets - "hang" on those two commandments. (Matthew 22)
---------------------------------------------
[ME]"Where has evolution been pulled from schools?"
[RobRoy]Heh, heh. You think schools operate in a cultural vacuum? My youngest is a Senior in high school. Do you honestly think her friends and she don't chuckle about the things said in "science" class? She likes to point out the "evolution claims" in her school books. Some of them are downright dogmatic in their goofball assumptions and scientific support or lack thereof.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think "goofball assumptions" just about covers it.
Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for your kind words. "Everything" really does hang on those two commandments.
Perhaps you should go back to God and get your supernatural powers readjusted. They are not working properly.
Smarmy? Jeepers, thanx alot, RWP. No I am not a lawyer. I was just re-asserting a list of assertions offered by a friend, just to show that there's more than one way to look at a problem. Is that "smarmy" of me? You know, if you think I got some point wrong, you could offer your own view.
I would guess he used "smarmy" since your response seemed evasive to the initial issue. You asked me to present you with the "lies" and I did. You danced around so as to offer no progress on the issue.
With regard to that particular challenge, post 904 and 940 were as far as I could take it and stay within the boundaries of credible sources.
I found no credible challenges to remove the theory of evolution from science textbooks, but a number of challenges to the content - including examples which are no longer accepted in the science community.
To whatever extent the presentation of the theory of evolution relies on the fossil record, it is "dogmatic" by definition simply because the lineage is "unprovable" and that is what the term means. However, evidence for evolution which stems from molecular biology does not have that difficulty.
I don't know what was meant exactly by the term "goofball" but I can relate to something like that which I observed on one of the science channels. In that case, the artists depicting the evolution of a dinosaur had attributed a certain color pattern (as I recall, a zebra like coloring) - without producing any evidence or reasoning for it. My reaction was that such an obvious omission would cast doubt on the other unexplained presumptions which were being presented on that same program.
Perhaps the correspondents would prefer you use their jargon, such as "lie!" But it would be out of character for you to make any such personal condemnation.
I guess that it is agreed that RR's post was dogmatic?
There are prophecies also of historical events that where future at the time they where given that have been fulfilled and there are prophecies yet future to be fulfilled.
Some more specific than others.
I was amused by the fact that everything you agreed to, you hedged on; even where it was unnecessary. For example, I agree, every measuring instrument should be recalibrated occasionally, but you aren't going to recalibrate 4.7 billion down to six thousand.
'Smarmy' may have been the wrong word; but in any case my remark was intended to be jocular (with a slight edge). On the other hand, maybe I need to recalibrate the sardonic-meter.
Every comment was well considered to duck her original stated intent.
An unproven or unprovable claim is dogmatic by definition. That does not mean it is false - whether we are speaking of the fossil record or dismissals of the same.
IMHO, the substantive difficulty on evolution threads is credibility. What constitutes proof to one correspondent, may fail as proof to another. That is not a reflection of moral character but of one's worldview.
For instance, an atheist may not accept Scriptural proofs, and a Young Earth Creationist may not accept geological/radiological proofs.
Which brings me back to my first point, hundreds of posts ago, that it serves no useful purpose to engage a theological argument with science or vice versa. It only causes heat, no light at all - because among believers, Truth always trumps facts and among non-believers, facts are supreme.
IMHO, the best progress is made when the game is kept within a defined ballpark - either theology or science.
I've seen those same shows on the Discovery Channel (Walking with Dinosaurs) and there were numerous segments right before commercial breaks where the program explained how they had examined the evidence and come to the conclusions they did.
One segment mentioned color and properly noted that the color schemes used in the program were only educated guesses.
I don't see how this is misleading at all. The dinosaurs and plants in the program had to have some sort color scheme so they just chose some that seemed to make sense. They were very upfront it.
"That's a pretty sweeping statement, WildTurkey. Could you help me narrow it down a little bit? Just give me an example or two, and I'll go chase it (them) down. Then we can compare notes. If there's evil to be found there, why, we can just root it out together." Apparently you feel there is no "evil" out their and the creationists are not spreading lies. Thank you.
Yes, that would be your reaction, A-G, and also mine. But my little nephew, Nicholas -- who is simply besotted with dinosaurs (just as I was, when I was his age) -- will think the "color scheme" is an actual fact. What was mere artistic license enters the stream of supposed reality of a little boy who does not yet have any critical skills. Thus are our youth indoctrinated into the "accepted" and "acceptable" notions of our time....
You know, there is much about Darwinist theory that is based on conjecture. I'd only point out that even what is a very strong conjecture still is not an actual fact. And all our wishing and hoping will not make it so.
Then you will have to retract your "fossil record" statements.
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.