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
Adequate is good enougth. Do you feel inadequate?
Actually, there is such a requirement in the practice of science. Particularly when there is no sound argument against the currently accepted theory.
It sounds like you are overstating your case somewhat there, JS. One can question a theory until the cows come home without an alternative theory, under certain conditions, and still be practicing science.
Some of these conditions might include:
One has new experiemental evidence which appears to contradict the theory
The theory being questioned is new, and one is questioning the mathematics, the predictions, or the design of the experiments which support the theory
"Less-filling / tastes great" debates such as nature vs. nurture, or low-carb diet (Atkins) vs. low fat (Ormish)
And of course one is always free to look for logical flaws or faulty predictions, even if one has no replacement.
Despite some posters' intellectual vanity, it really is acceptable to say "I don't know" or "I haven't studied that yet" or "Gee, how does that model work in regard to XXX?"
Full Disclosure: It may be true that none of these examples apply to the typical posting by cre-o's here. But there is stil such a thing as refining a model; or such a thing as poking holes in a model, in order to alert people it's time to work on a better one--even if you haven't worked out the improvements yourself.
Good joke for the cre-o's on this thread:
A Sunday School teacher is introducing his young charges to
the concept of repentance and forgiveness. After giving
several examples from the Bible, the teacher concludes,
"OK, class. Can anyone tell me what we have to do first to be forgiven?"
A little boy in the back pipes up. "SIN!"
This is just begging for someone to post a photo of a bottle of Viagra or Levitra :-)
Full Disclosure: It's not the motion of the ocean, it's the size of your Peninsula. And some folks have *lots* of coastline!
It's not the wand, but the skill of the magician.
Sorry. All of my return volley of puns are too convoluted or just rather crude. I'll try and do better next time!
Experimental evidence contradicting a 145 year old theory will have to be pretty powerful. A number of hypothethetical examples are posted on most of these threads, but no such powerful contradiction exists for evolution. Any theory as vast in its implications as evolution will spawn smaller explanatory theories and hypotheses. These are fair game, and rather frequently revised.
Evolution is neither new nor faddish.
In fact, the word "theory" is generally applied only to well established ideas, not easily overturned.
mm-hmm, what kind of powerful experiments did darwin do to overturn the very old theory of his day??
seems like evolution was impossible to do experiments on..
was going to submit an essay on this article but had no idea how long it was already
Dude, it's Darwin Central. We don't need no stinkin' Evoeus.
2) Evolution is impossible since it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy). I am sure we have all heard both sides. Can we agree to call these false arguments?
Hi WT! Though you didn't direct these questions to me, I am very interested in exploring them.
May I ask a favor? Would you kindly point me to the discussion of (2) that you think is wrongly argued? I'm pretty confident that thermodynamics does not contradict evolution at all; but want to see what has been said on this point before I reply.
Thanks guy!
Too bad 2beathomemom's posts were deleted but the basic argument starts like this:
"Evolution is impossible IAW the theory of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) because the theory requires a closed system (false) disorder to increase (false) and evolution requires that disorder decrease."
The argument is nonsensical since they typically use wrong nomeclature and misapply the principles of the law.
Here is a rather long explanation. Take a look and if it is too detailed, let me know and I will "shorten" it some.
You can google entropy creationism or google entropy evolution and get a lot of these sites.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Yes, as in Newton's gravitation vs. General Relativity.
Please re-read the "Full Disclosure" from my earlier post, concentrating upon the portion in boldface. :-)
Cheers!
He didn't overturn the old theory so much as he described the mechanism of natural selection. Evolutionary theory had been around for a while.
Also most of the evidence for evolutionary biology is observational, not experimental. People don't live long enough for the kinds of experiments that would be fun to do with evolution.
That limit is changing. I don't know if I will live long enough, but evolution is definitely a laboratory science now.
I still want flying primates!
None of this gliding around stuff.
;)
Don't know about flying primates, but I have gliding mammals. I have a cat that goes in and out through the cat door at night. Lately he has been bringing in young flying squirrels. I wake up at 3:00 am to the sounds of the squirrel screaming. Usually the squirrel escapes into the house, so I have to capture it and release it.
It wasn't so bad when it was rats. I didn't mind hearing them scream. But evolution has made flying squirrels cute, so I expect them to replace rats, by human selection.
LOL!
My cat goes after rabbits. Screaming rabbits are very unsettling. They sound like human children.
Come to think of it, last year it was bats. So I've had both flying and gliding mammals. Can primates be far behind?
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.