I prefer cats. But good advice is good advice, so I am outta here.
Hug a kitten today!
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
This is devolving into a foodfight. How about cranking it down a few notches?
Would you like to clarify yourself here, pal?
A Christian lied to me and I made the mistake in believing them?
What'd I miss? If there's evidence for that implication, it's better to point it out than to just issue taunts.
Not helping...
How about we take it off completely. :-)
Ergo, ALL "Christians" are liars?
Nice twisted, self-serving logic...
If one presumes YOU aren't a lying (fill-in-the-blank)
Ya think?? ;-)
He could have explained, or better yet just stated that he retracted, that statement when I first posted to him. Instead, I was admonished to seek a dictionary. As of this writing I stand accused of being a murdering Christian soldier because you're pal is a bigot.
He still hasn't retracted the statement and only addressed it because a fellow evo pointed out the brazenness of it.
Evidently, then, your judgment needs work.
I don't think there is any evidence at all in this little tete a tete pointing to that conclusion.
Why don't you point me to my bigotry. Lets save time, give me a link.
I told I that I was dropping this issue but just for the record, I did not accuse you a being a murdering Christian soldier.
You're a disgraceful human being WT. But that's OK, I got your number.
Normally, in scientific circles, one initially states that which he is out to prove so that all may judge the positions taken in the light of the direction that is being pursued. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.
I specifically did not ping since I purposefully left out references to you as I desired not to make your identity known. It was not important to the meaning of the post and I had no desire to fight those battles again.
No, you do not.
because you're pal is a bigot.
Are you perhaps presuming that he is "my pal" because you have a prejudice that all who argue in favor of evolution must be part of some sort of social club?
Was metacognative "your pal" when he falsely accused Daniel Dennett of wanting to put Christians in concentration camps, when actually Dennett was saying that radical Islam may have to be contained in some way?
You're not innocent in this foodfight either. Go hug some puppies or something and then please resume when you're less in the mood to lash out and more in the mood to discuss issues. And yes, others on this thread would do well to take the same advice.
My bad. I guess I have been so disillusioned by being "tricked" by BB and your "font error" claims that I have forgotten my manners.
I prefer cats. But good advice is good advice, so I am outta here.
If I may play referee here for a moment, since I think you two have been unintentionally talking past each other a bit...
It looks to me as if WildTurkey took betty boop's earlier offer to "root out evil" as a playfully worded but sincere offer to help get some inaccurate/dishonest creationist sources to correct their falsehoods, if some examples could be provided which need correcting. That's also how I understood her post.
WT listed some examples (although not giving citations to who/where they've been promulgated, which is necessary information if we're going to try to get the source(s) to correct themselves).
BB responded in different ways to various items in the list, pointing out that some might be arguable, but agreeing to others, and deflecting some by saying that she herself has never said such a thing (although that wasn't the nature of the list in the first place).
From WT's side, it seems as if he feels let down that BB just treated the list as a discussion item, and didn't follow up on her offer to make sure that such claims get corrected at their source. He feels that BB reneged on her offer.
From BB's side, it seems as if she missed WT's interpretation of her post, and thus saw WT's subsequent reference to her "rooting out evil" line as focusing on the word "evil", and she laughed off WT's comment because her use of the word "evil" was flippant, not literal. But WT's focus was actually on the apparent offer to "root out" the original misrepresentations that were being made by some creationists.
In the end, WT felt that an offer had been broken, and BB felt baffled at the response, but this was all due more to misunderstandings than anything else.
At least, that's my take -- if it helps y'all to reach some kind of agreement, great. If not, just feel free to ignore me.
That was my take to, Ichneumon--aside from various cross-chatter involving dictionaries and the entrance of Balrog...
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.