.JPG
)
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
You see fifty coins being tossed onto a table. You examine them once settled on the table. All fifty are heads. What is on the other side of the coins?
Good idea but that may exclude some that are scientifically accurate. Could be a bookkeeping nightmare. I would rather have like a set up responses to those few arguments and maybe include some "sample" websites on that prepared statement.
For example:
Your argument xxxx is not considered for this discussion since a bipartisan panel had concluded that the basis for that argument is scientifically lacking and is used repeatedly to distract from more meaningful discussions of evolution. Your contribution is welcome to progress the discussion but not to detract. Thank you.
--------------------------
I know that others have tried different ways to moderate the discussions so I am just throwing it out for discussion.
Couple of off-the-wall observations here.
1) Why does this bring the word "ergodic" to mind?
(look it up on www.m-w.com...)
2) This also seems like the way I have been told some
drug companies and others investigate the effects
of chemical additives on organisms--overdosing
on a given chemical all at once to simulate
cumulative, long-term exposure.
Cheers!
In an ergodic system, the crossstream (note the artificially induced sss) and downstream properties are the same. Coin tossing games are not that way. The properties of 10 games of matching pennies with 10 tosses are not the same as that of a single game of 100 tosses. (Trivially, one cannot be behind 11 points in a 10 toss game.)
Yes. Horse race tracks pay out on winning bets the same way. A pro learns to follow the money. You may *know* the horse will win, but if everybody else bets the same horse the payout still won't match the risk. And there's ALWAYS a risk. Even in a fixed race.
Obviously fractal attractors at work in any discussion. Here's another one: sex.
Aye. And for non-ergodic, they are not.
The issue I was trying to raise was the possibility whether
a) there are "almost" ergodic systems, where depending on the property observed, you can treat them as though they really were ergodic, without too big an error...
b) are there cases where one thinks something is ergodic, and it turns out it *wasn't* at all? How far up the proverbial creek does one end up?
Just stirring the pot...
Cheers!
You wouldn't believe how far we went trying to come to an agreement for civil discourse on these threads. In the end, the thing that worked best was to ignore the provocations and junk posts.
Sometimes very good information is indeed available from a biased website. The problem is that the source itself can become a bone of contention making it impossible to continue with whatever others were trying to discuss.
IMHO, it works best to pick up a unique phrase from the article, use Google and find the same article from a neutral and credible website. If it can't be found at a credible site, then its time to go back to square one and see why not.
Isn't that the definition of bigorty?
So you actually think questioning Darwinism automatically makes one a creationist...
...and you wonder why you are not taken seriously.
Dunno. Couldn't find "bigorty" in the dictionary.
Yes, I transposed two letters.
I think it is fairly obvious what word I was using but I guess I have given you more create than you have earned.
What you said is the definition of bigotry
I have no idea how you inferred everything you ‘imagined’ I was saying from a post were I only asked “What?”
And I repeat, I actually think a formal equation is not (not…not…not…) necessary because logic is sufficient. I do not need an equation to know who my wife is nor do I believe that my wife merely is an elaborate differential equation. I have not calculated probability (specified complexity, coin tosses, poker hands, etc…) but you continue to insist that I am and then argue accordingly.
Actually, it's not.
Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&-trE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigotMain Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Pointing out that someone acts like a creationist does not make me a bigot. Saying said person, because he is a creationist, has a subpar intelligence would be bigoted, but I didn't say that.
I'm sorry, but there IS proof of the Resurrection.
Eyewitness accounts, written down, preserved for a long time.
Horrible deaths, which SHOULD have caused much recanting, if the facts were not true, were the end of many 'believers', who were THERE when it all started.
I guess my faith is not strong enough to believe that it all did NOT happen.
(Kinda like a holocaust denier, 2000 years from now....)
HEY!!
You let your cursor linger on my cartoon!
The table............
My fract is being attracted!!!
AFLAC!
I'll have to save this to look at the source code...
Cheers!
Thats quite a generalization as I know of several 'religious' scientists who are definitely not ignoramuses.
I'm sure either side in the God v. Evolution debate think the other is stupid.
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.