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
No--it was due to my big fat fingers mistyping!
If you had a point to make with your population curve, please make it.
Your reasoning and evidence for this assertion?
Pretty close, from my side.
I took the offer seriously also. I think I have had only one tantrum on this thread, and it was regarding the concentration camps.
What end? It goes on and on and on........
Your equation is a model for UNLIMITED population growth thus it is meaningless in this context. Here is an example: they young earth crowd asserts that humans have been around for only about 6,000 years. For your equation to yield a current population of 6 billion, g works out to about .003644. Using this value, your equation yields the following results...
| n | Year [AD] | p | Accepted Population (millions) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6000 | 2000 | 6,000,000,496 | |
| 5900 | 1900 | 4,170,606,971 | 1600 |
| 5800 | 1800 | 2,898,993,511 | 1000 |
| 5700 | 1700 | 2,015,093,591 | 600 |
| 5600 | 1600 | 1,400,693,780 | 550 |
| 5500 | 1500 | 973,623,794 | 500 |
| 5400 | 1400 | 676,766,974 | 360 |
| 5300 | 1300 | 470,421,471 | 443 |
| 5200 | 1200 | 326,990,484 | 400 |
| 5100 | 1100 | 227,291,447 | 310 |
| 5000 | 1000 | 157,990,536 | 300 |
| 4900 | 900 | 109,819,396 | 226 |
| 4800 | 800 | 76,335,583 | 220 |
| 4700 | 700 | 53,060,948 | 207 |
| 4600 | 600 | 36,882,724 | 200 |
| 4500 | 500 | 25,637,222 | 195 |
| 4400 | 400 | 17,820,461 | 195 |
| 4300 | 300 | 12,387,022 | 220 |
| 4200 | 200 | 8,610,233 | |
| 4100 | 100 | 5,984,982 | |
| 4000 | 0 | 4,160,168 | |
| 3500 | -500 | 675,073 | |
| 3000 | -1000 | 109,545 | |
| 2500 | -1500 | 17,776 | |
| 2000 | -2000 | 2,884 | |
| 1500 | -2500 | 468 | |
| 1000 | -3000 | 76 | |
| 500 | -3500 | 12 | |
| 0 | -4000 | 2 |
As you can see, either your model is faulty or your model completely disproves the notion of a 6,000 year old human population.
According to your model, the total human population after 500 years would be 12 people. After 1000 years, 76 people. After 1500 years, 468 people.
Also notice how much your model differs from accepted population numbers in the last 500 years. Your model predicts a human population of 4 billion in 1900 while the accepted number is around 1.6 billion.
Looks like you got zapped. Oh well, I'm sure you'll be back again with a different name, but the same old tired, thrice-refuted arguments.
I have been trying to figure out where 2 is at so after reading your post I clicked on #1251 to backtrack and it has been deleted. Was it that bad?
No, it was just the same old stuff. I think that she got suspended for creating a second ID after being banned. She mentioned that she had done that in one of her previous posts. The moderator probably just yanked all of her posts after she was suspended. I don't think the content of her posts, while full of errors, was offensive.
Basically she asserted that her population growth calculation model disproved evolution. Several posters, including myself, have tried to show her that population growths just aren't that simple - especially for higher life forms. My follow up post tried to show her how the model she is using doesn't even jive with the last 100 years of population growth.
She promised to go learn entropy and get back to us. I wonder when that will be and what we will call her ...
Any idea which retread?
This is not shocking to me at all.
2. The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.
I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.
Biology = function -> structure -> sequence (teleology inferred)
Evolution = sequence -> structure -> function (naturalism a priori)
We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.
Accidental as in without purpose or ultimate reason. You could say unintended, unplanned, or fortuitous…
But I was looking at the ‘bigger’ picture in hope for some resolve in post 975 when I asked, “What do we do and how do we find common ground?” We can all argue until we are blue in the face (or fingers) but it is rare that we actually attempt to find a resolve or common ground. I think there can be a common ground if both sides are not so dogmatic with their beliefs. At least I can hope after looking through these last posts…
Originally I thought GoodSeedHomeSchool, but 2AtHomeMom mentioned she was in one of two states where Badnarik was not on the Presidential Ballot, which would (IIRC) mean New Hampshire or Oklahoma. And judging by the hours she was putting kids to bed, she was central time zone, so I'd bet on Oklahoma. GoodSeedHomeSchool was from Alabama.
Come to think of it, she said it was a certain Bush state, so that's OK, not NH.
Anyopne remember where DittoJed2 was from?
Don't remember, but I was thinking DJ myself. Oklahoma sounds about right.
Damn, you could be a writer for C.S.I. :-)
Oklahoma is just south of the DUmpster home base in Kansas, too ;)
I just checked in over there. I was rather disappointed. No recent posts, no imaginary one-sided conversations with FReepers, it was, well...dead. They've even stopped naming the evo-loony of the week.
Have any real Freepers ever been named evo-loony of the week?
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.