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
Oh please. Every day researchers nibble at the details of biology. It is the dream of every researcher to upset the applecart. If ID was a real scientific idea, it would suggest reseach that could upset the applecart.
Quantum theory was a case of a major upset, but if you look at the history, the data that lead to the quantum idea came before the idea. There is [are?] no such data gnawing at evolution.
If you expect to replace evolution with a new theory, first you will need to find something evolution can't explain, not just something that is unknown, but something that contradicts evolution.
Right now you have some structures that are unexplained in detail, but they are typical of the difficult problems in biology, not contradictions. That's it. that all ID has. Some unexplained phenomena. Period.
Irrelevant.
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.
So you think the realm of judgment is different than the courts? Doesn't one have to judge the proof? What good is proof without judgment? Without judgment, proof is merely data
If Science is like the courts, why do evolutionist demand an alternative theory when evidence against their theory is presented? That is not how the courts work.
Are you claiming one should render judgment in the absense of logic? If you don't judge the proof by means of logic - what means do you use? Ordeal? Is it even possible to render judgment without logic?
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements.
Interesting word-play. Is it possible to have judgment in the absense of truth? Truth is conformity to fact - are you saying science does not seek to conform to fact?
When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence
So what you are saying is science does not seek to conform to fact but it is impressed by longevity.
You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels.
...so stop questioning and close your mind?
You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Like you said - science is just like the courts therefore in the courts one most have better theory of who IS guilty before one can be found not guilty.
Yeah. Right.
That is contrary to your first statement "anyone really familiar with the subject does not question evolution" - it is impossible to nibble at the details of something you do not even question.
I did not mean it as an insult, but as a comparison of what WE consider evidence now, not being sufficient 2K from now.
Of course there are more accounts now of the H; it was a much larger event, sizewise.
If there had been reports of seeing someone rise up from a pile of stinking corpses, after they'd been exhumed, would you believe it?
8o)
I want a cage near the peanut stand!
Where are we going with this?
If they are valid, real coins, then the tails are down.
Lives of children......
What about 'souls of children'?
"Survival of the adequate."
Well... THIS sure explains it then!
Thats perfect! Much more accurate than "fittest".
I'm fairly positive the M&M's will NOT change their veiws because there are some 'christians' that are traveling the same road....
Evo-Cardinal Js1138 saith: "Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements." As evo-Cardinal he might repeat this saying and add in front of the evo-ecclestical court, "This why the evo-heretics before you today must be burnt at the fully evolved stake, along with their vile creationist tractates."
Evo-Cardinal Js1138 writes in a evo-bull: "When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence." He might follow that with, "Just as the Holy Roman Church's ruling that the Sun revolves around the earth stood for many centuries. The test of time! That's the ticket, my faithful!"
Calling Mr. Logicperson: this is an 'Appeal to... what'?
OK, so I sometimes post stuff that is badly worded.
Here's why the two comcepts aren't contradictory. Researchers collect data, generally in response to a widely known problem. It is every researcher's hope to find data the forces a rethinking of some aspect of a theory.
ID doesn't collect data. It doesn't do field research. What is does do is scan published articles looking for unresolved problems. This is a completely different kind of nipping at heels. It contributes nothing. It adds nothing to the sum of knowledge. It is just point out the obvious, that we don't know everything.
Here's a nice google assignment. Find a single instance of a scientific discovery that resulted from the assumption of supernatural actions or psychic phenomena. Tell me how the research was conducted and whether the presence of supernatural action was confirmed.
Why... it'd be time for me to buy a lottery ticket!!!
(After all, the odds of winning are SO much better if you buy one; aren't they?)
A good question: which is more likely - me finding a winner someone accidently mis-read and discarded it; or buying my own and winning???
Do you think you are -- the evolved Stochastic -- merely "adequate"?
But one table, one tosser, fifty coins in the air and landing. Then all heads?
What kind of coin are they? This is a test of a scientist! What would science say, beyond any reasonable doubt?
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.