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
7. Scientific achievements:
I'm curious. Since when are political goals to be considered scientific achievements?
I looked throug the entire document and saw no outline of research proposals.
FWIW, I have no great doubt myself that evolution as we currently understand it remains an incomplete framework, much the same as can be said of a whole array of scientific inquiries. I personally consider it rather foolish when anyone suggests that our knowledge of the universe is more or less complete, and particularly disappointing on the rare occasion that a scientist implies as much.
But as far as the conceptual lattice of adaptive speciation under natural selection pressure there can be no reasonable doubt in my view.
You know, don't you that you are doing the grunt work for the Moonies and Muslims? Christians are a tiny minority of this movement.
Besides, we have come up against one-another in the past, and I can assure you no one believes you are not a creationist.
That is ludicrous and illogical.
There is no NEED for a theory.
A theory stands on its own.
Lack of another theory is not supporting evidence for a theory.
Take observed UFO's. There is no sound theory to explain them but that does not prove they are flown by space aliens (which is a theory)
Your statement is similar to saying: one must prove who actually did a crime before one can be found innocent.
I avoided using that word since too many on the C side associate it with a tautology (falsely of course).
I thought it was perhaps it is easier to imagine a competition between individual self-replicating entities.
I don't see a lot of difference between you post and the Wedge Issue document. I'm not in favor of destroying people's careers over their beliefs. You have a point there.
But that point cuts both ways. Schools and government have always been PC. What changes from era to era is who has the power to define correctness.
The issue being argued on these threads is not who gets jobs, but how science is defined. That really hasn't changed in 200 years. Science is always empirical, always follows evidence, always searches for the naturalistic explanation. It's not political correctness; it's just what science is and does. Scientific theories are never going to be replaced by assumptions of supernatural intervention and design.
The ID movement is dead, not because it is wrong -- I can't prove it is wrong, and have no interest in trying. It is dead because it has no research program. It has no testable hypotheses. The concepts of irreducible complexity lead to no research proposals, except ones that promise to find functional subcomponents. You cannot have a healthy, living intellectual community based on fear of finding that things have natural explanations.
That only proves you have no idea what you are talking about - you are intellectually lazy and you rely far too much on bigoted clichés. I am not a creationist and I am not trying to disprove evolution.
Like I said: You argue to a creationist straw man of your own creation no matter how inapplicable it is.
BTW: when one has to resort to implying they speak for other people - usually it is a sign of a weak position.
I do not agree with you but thank you for ‘actually’ reading my post. Now do me a favor and answer this question I asked you… Do you know for certain that your brain (your very being, consciousness, logic) is the ultimate result of mindlessness?
No one is ever found innocent. If the evidence is insufficient they are found not guilty.
But you have entered the realm of judgement now, rather than proof. Science works exactly like the courts. Scientists, like jurors, must decide the facts, and facts are decided by judgement, not by pure logic. The jury of science has decided about 10,000 to one that the facts favor evolution.
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements. When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence. You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels. You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Define mindlessness, Convince me that evolution is not the thoughts of God.
Or, briefly, even a weak theory beats no theory at all.
and a weak placemarker is better than no placemarker at all.
If I thought evolution was a weak theory (judgement again) I would not argue for it vehemently.
I understand that hypotheses attempting to explain abiogenesis are currently weak (but they have the virtue of suggesting research). I would be careful with this in high school.
As you point out, ID is worse than weak, because it suggests no lines of research. It's worse than that because it suggests that research is somehow immoral.
When you see words like mindless tossed around, you know the tosser is making moral judgements about ideas themselves, and no longer cares about truth (or even confidence). ;-)
evolution = strong theory > weak theory > ID = no theory
delicious placemarker
When one stops questioning, it is no longer science - it is faith
The evos need a Evo-Pope. I nominate you! And lookee there -- puffs of white smoke -- or is brown -- whatever. Tag you're the new Evo-Pope.
I think you have your starting roster right here on the FR crevo threads for the the Society of Evoeus, the Evoesu-its -- the Order that purues evo-heretics and brings the Evo-Inquisition against them.
All Hail Evo-Pope Minoreus I!
When's your first Auto-de-fe? Where's the Iron-EvoMaiden?
Argh! The Dark Ages of Science are upon us ...
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.