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
Is that a joke?
No, the 6000 figure refers, not to the age of the Earth, but to the lapse of time from the ensoulment of Adam to the present. BTW, the 6000 figure isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwin's theory, even though Darwin expressed no interest whatever in "souls."
Respectfully, you demonstrated no such thing. First of all, I don't recall anyone using population growth as an evidence of evolution.
Secondly, your population growth calculation was fundamentally flawed in many ways. One way that it was flawed is that it totally disregarded population limiting factors. Maybe you felt that these limiting factors were built in to your growth rate factor? If so, that is a huge mistake.
Your posts are cluttered with statements like "I demonstrated" or "I proved" but, respectfully, you have done no such thing.
I dunno, Jeff. When I was a kid, all the dinosaurs in all my books were gray, like modern rhinos and hippos. To me, it doesn't matter a whit whether you make 'em gray, purple with pink dots, or chartreuse, provided there is a footnote nearby that states, "we really don't know what color the dinosaurs were, and from this great distance in time, it is impossible to find out. But we liked these colors...."
Since you have written so extensively on theories, perhaps you should be aware that it is not the inertial theory. It is Newton's First LAW of motion.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
No. I'm a binary thinker. I suppose one might want to stay 'in' with both camps, but given the fairly implacable hostility between the camps, I would think that's a waste of time.
I'm sorry, Alamo-Girl; but let's just let it pass. WT doesn't know of what he speaks. I guess.
Not with me. She made an offer and I replied "Fair enough" and complied with the terms of her offer. Only after multiple postings and responses after leading me on, she declares her commitment "a joke". That leads to ZERO credibility. Thank you. I was on to your game from your first post.
Integrity, honesty. Sorry if those are foreign concepts. Maybe dishonesty and deception are more familiar. Granted, those are the tools of the anti-evolutionists.
As hard as it is to believe, some of us on the science side of this debate are also Christians and are offended by such a statement.
The debate is difficult but that's no reason to abandon good manners. There are lots of lurkers watching. ;)
You're now speaking for yourself. The biblical literalists here on FR, and elsewhere, clearly state that it's the age of the earth.
BTW, the 6000 figure isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwin's theory, even though Darwin expressed no interest whatever in "souls."
But, stipulating said ensoulment, are we all descendants of Adam, or can souls be laterally transferred? You must be aware human population genetics are incompatible with common ancestry as recent as 6000 years. Aborigines have been in Australia for far more than 6000 years.
We get all sorts of insults to atheists here; probably a new thread about once a week. We killed 100 million people in the last century, you know, and inspired Stalin, Hitler and Michael Jackson.
You learn to ignore most of them, though I do like to taunt some of the worst insulters.
Didn't mean to offend all Christians. I was raised a Christian and Baptized at the age of seven. My comment (probably a little crudely put) was based on my frustration of the "Christians" (in quotes because I do not believe they are true to Christian morals) continually lie and deceive on these threads. My intent was to call them on the sincerity of there Christianity instead of insulting Christianity.
OTOH, I do not consider Christianity particulary superior to some other spiritual concepts and I detest Christians that consider their position "more holy" than others.
Yep, as in "Turn the other cheek"
8^)
That is what "Walking with Dinosaurs" did - there was a segment explaining the fossil evidence before every commercial break. There were many such segments, each covering different aspects of the fossil evidence, so each one was only shown once.
In this particular case, the colors weren't just ones that the liked, a lot of thought was put into them. They may not be correct but they are very informed guesses and were properly disclosed as just that.
Sheesh, WildTurkey! (There you go again.)
OK; if you say so.... (Talk about Hysterical Darwinites Panicking....)
You missed "racist". That one was "offered" to me earlier in this thread.
I understand that you've been tangling with some ridiculous creationist types, and I know how it can get to you, but you shouldn't let that affect your reaction to BB.
You must have missed the part where the two of us engaged in a civil discourse about how to move the debate to a high level, she made an offer and I said "fair enough". After many back and forths, I finally concluded she was not serious in comlying and when I confronted her with my conclusion, she declared:
Not a straigt shooter in my book.
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.