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
It makes no difference how complex something appears to be. Biological systems and structures are not specified in advance. You cannot calculate the probability of any given structure, because there are an astronomical number of equally complex structures that are functionally equivalent.
Creationists seem to think there is only one route to a given function, or only one structure that can enable a given function. I would like to see you try to demonstrate that, particularly since there are several billion different living embodiments of the human genome, each quite different and each quite human.
I gave the example of a bridge hand. Creationist math would calculate the probability of a specified set of cards being dealt, whereas the relevant critera is the probability that any given hand will produce game. The set of different deals that will result in game points being scored is astronomical, even though it is a fraction of the number of possible different deals.
Hey, you're talking to two of the Ten-Most-Wanted, according to the Conservaboobs ;)
Sorry, I mean Hamster Brain of the week. Let's see, we have PH (2 X), Vade, jennyp, Ich, Dales....I'm truly disappointed that apparently I never won, even after being number 3 on the ALS enemies list.
I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.
What gives?
Certainly not, that would put me on your side of the argument. I think I've been pretty clear about my view that evolution is simply a mechanism that God uses.
Ichneumon, you entered the tete a tete defending WT. That was your choice, not mine. I learned my lesson a long time ago about jumping in between two adversaries, GeneralRe can attest to that.
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?
:-} Did I enter that fray on metacognitives side? No, but if I did I wouldn't be upset at you characterizing he or she as my pal for puposes of that tete a tete. I didn't so your argument and your analogy both fail.
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.
LOL, you'll understand if we agree to disagree here.
One side requires them to be dogmatic in their beliefs; the other side realizeds that the one side is an organized attack. As long as FR is an open board allowing the fanatics to post inciting articles there will be no middle ground. But then, we are not a science forum so I guess that is to be.
You haven't posted a relevant response to my questions.
You aren't inferring anything. You know the history of each.
The post I referenced showed the dogmatism…
You ask questions and I answer… That’s how it works now and how it has worked in the past.
I've got style. Deal with it.
No, what you do is make assertions, and I ask probing questions. My questions are neither arbitrary nor unresponsive.
I am saying that arithmetic is not relevant unless the calculation is relevant to the problem under discussion.
The fact that you try to turn the argument away for verifiable evidence means you have no adequate response.
My original question was whether natural selection operates randomly, eliminating individuals at random. You know the answer to this question is dangerous, so you turn it aside with philosophical/theological responses. The question has a verifiable answer.
What can ‘purely natural science’ tell me about my computer? Well, it can tell me many things that are interesting and might one day lead to a reproduction due to reverse engineering, but can and should it tell you that no intelligent design was involved? The obvious answer is a resounding “No!” But this answer comes from a brain that is far more complex than a computer and is ‘currently’ attributed to ‘purely natural science’, i.e. mindlessness.
Please note, the filename is not a reliable clue. I control the filename.
Designed. It's too perfect.
How do you know it's a natural snowflake. I copied it from a site that has a mixture of snowflakes an artwork.
Show me your reasoning.
Look, I answered your questions as I have in the past and I even threw out an olive branch. You have not answered any of my questions or addressed my points and quite frankly I am not questioning your integrity due to this… Yet I am the ‘bad guy’?
What, are you now going to say that this was designed in photoshop and I’m wrong? What would that prove – that we never will know if anything was ever designed if we infer design?
I don't really know the answer. I browsed through a list of graphic art and photographs and picked one that was clear and sharp. I haven't looked to see which it really is.
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.