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
comlying >> complying
straigt >> straight
I was following the great Jewish scholars here: Maimonides, et al., are my authorities on this point. I figure they're the "real experts" on the Old Testament. Others are free to consult other sources if they wish.
...stipulating said ensoulment, are we all descendants of Adam, or can souls be laterally transferred?
Yes, but perhaps not literally; and No.
You must be aware human population genetics are incompatible with common ancestry as recent as 6000 years.
If there is common ancestry, it surely dates back farther than 6000 years. But the issue is not common ancestry; it's when the first fully human being was ensouled by God -- which is the sine qua non of man's full humanity.
But now were are doing something here that Alamo-Girl cautioned against: mixing science and philosophy/theology. What I've said above indicates some of the profound differences between the two. But such distinctions tend to get lost on these evolution threads. So maybe we ought to quit while we're ahead?
In the end, the two disciplines are the two legs we stand on.
Depending on which words are emphasized within that last sentence, WT...
If you used that as a pretext for hostility for Christians, your attitude is consistent with Christ's words "you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake" -- yes I saw you were raised a Christian, but I have met athiests who were "raised" Christian and are now openly hostile to Christianity. OTOH if you meant you are opposed to Christians who are spiritually arrogant, instead of humble, you are right in line with St. Paul : Ephesians, "...it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast" or the writings in the Epistle to the Romans about the Gentiles being grafted in (as opposed to say the Jews) but that the grafting is part of God's plan to draw both Jews and Gentiles to Himself...so Christians shouldn't be "smug".
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Changing one's mind about posting is not the same as a lie, WT.
Couldn't resist, despite my earlier post of no more till night-time.
(Lunch in my time zone, you see.)
Having done a fair bit of ranting myself, out of frustration, I have to say that I most admire those posters here who manage to consistently ignore the insults and dishonesty and simply argue to the point. I won't name them, lest I leave any deserving individuals out.
But I will note that my opinion of fundamentalist Christians in general has been greatly lowered by my experiences in these threads. More broadly, until a couple of years ago, I tended to discount the differences between social and libertarian conservatives. Now I worry whether the Republican coalition can survive the wave of fundie triumphalism that followed Dubya's re-election. And I'm going to think very hard before I again mark a ballot for a Christian conservative, particularly if there's also a Libertarian running.
I have lived with Hindus and Buddhists over the years. Overseas and in the US. I am now married to a Buddhist. That experience has tempered my "Christianity". I have utmost admiration for humble Christians. My mother, sister, her husband and his family, all humble Christians. Full Disclosure: Changing one's mind about posting is not the same as a lie, WT.
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.
WT may have expressed it in a harsh manner, but he is pretty much correct in his assertions - at least in these threads. I don't believe that every anti-evolutionist uses these tactics, because some are just simply misinformed and don't know any better.
A prime example of these tactics is quote mining. Darwin's writing style of posing rhetorical questions and then answering them makes him a prime target of this tactic.
Another example are the faulty probability calculations that prove that evolution is a statistical impossibility. Even after these have been debunked, the same posters use them over and over.
An really good example of deception in this very thread is the use of a faulty population growth calculation to disprove an old earth. It was supposed to show that if humans had been around longer than 6,000 years than the number of people on the planet would be in the trillions. Unfortunately her own formula resulted in a population of 19 trillion if a 6,000 year value was used. Even though this and other faults with her approach have been pointed out, she continues to use it as "Evidence". Currently, no other anti-evolutionist has called her on it.
Evolutionists will correct other evolutionists if they post incorrect or shaky evidence. Creationists never really do. In the above example, another creationist posted " I like that! They [evolutionists] are forced to ignore so many things." in response to the population calculation post. Once the calculation and approach had been shown to be faulty, that poster never corrected his "cheerleading".
He was defeated in the next election. Seems he let his 0.01% override the big picture. Particulary how to handle that and a full-time job also.
I had an earlier post that I didn't plan on posting till tonight, since I was at work. Obviously that didn't last. :-)
Cheers!
Hey, nice piece of bigotry there WT.
Who? (joking!)
Thanks, Patrick. The feeling's mutual, of course.
Please go consult a dictionary.
It was a few days ago that I posted that I was frustrated with continually dealing with the repeated lies and thus I started venting my frustration by requesting that they live up to Christian principles. My bad.
Don't require a dictionary. That statement is bigotry. Be a man and admit it. Or better yet, apologize to the overwhelming number of Christians who can be taken at their word.
Better yet, get a dictionary AND read the whole thread.
I thing I remember your handle. Haven't I had a problem believing some of your fake science and false propaganda?
I would thing a Christian would admonish the Christian that lied rather than the person that outed their non-Christian behavior.
But in two of the posts after that, you wrote "thing" when by context it appears you meant to write "think"...
May I humbly suggest that you consult a dictionary, or perhaps check your keyboard?
Cheers!
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.