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
Which makes what you are reading is not an eyewitness account, but an account of an eyewitness account. For it to be an eyewitness account, the witness himself would have had to written the account. Which is all I was saying; they aren't all eyewitness accounts.
Of all of the bible cites you mentioned, how many were written by the person who was, personally, a witness to the event described?
Okay, but your analogy is still a bit broken, because you are talking about witnessing a horrific, but naturalistic event, as compared to a supernatural event.
Of course there are more accounts now of the H; it was a much larger event, sizewise.
True enough.
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?
Well, I would believe the report, if I had no reason not to. I wouldn't attribute it to supernatural causes, though.
Having no intelligent purpose, meaning, or direction: unsupervised, impersonal.
Convince me that evolution is not the thoughts of God.
I’m sorry that I was not aware of your belief in God and I thank you for sharing this with me. But I’m curious ‘how’ you believe evolution comes from the thoughts of God.
First of all, I didn't say evolution "comes from" the thoughts of God. Secondly, I didn't say that evolution "is" the thoughts of God. I admit speculating along those lines, but it isn't a belief.
I apologize for the wording but all I really wanted to know is the relationship between evolution and your belief in God.
I'm pretty much on record as believing physical reality, like the turtles, goes all the way down. I do not think there is a separate reality for the physical and the spiritual. If it is possible for God to have separate manifestations while remaining one, it is possible for the physical and spiritual world to be one.
Interesting… I’m curious how this works and I hope you can explain this belief.
I do not think there is a separate reality for the physical and the spiritual. If it is possible for God to have separate manifestations while remaining one, it is possible for the physical and spiritual world to be one.
So you are saying the ‘spiritual’ can be studied by science and God allowed this through His manifestations?
Been thinking about our last. It seems you pointed to two main problems, out of your original list of 11 items: (1) Evolution is anti-Biblical (refining your statement down to first principles here); and (2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics absolutely falsifies evolution. Taken together, the claim here is that, on both Biblical and scientific grounds, evolution is a total fiction. I agree with neither assertion, nor with the conclusion towards which they point.
In the first place, it should be obvious to any observer that evolution is the main tendency of life, be it personal or imagined in more collective (special, as in “species”), environemnatl and/or cultural contexts. But if that sounds too high-fallutin’, then jeepers, all we have to point out here is that even the periodic table of the elements is an evolutionary production, according to the very best science we have these days. And that’s pretty good science, if you were to ask me.
I am certainly aware that there are doctrinal confessions within the Christian church that tend to take a dim view of evolutionary theory in principle. Such confessions of Christ tend to be devoted to the “sola scriptura theory.” This theory states that only the sacred language of the Sciptures can be trusted as a source of reliable and effectual Truth. The tradition is one of great honor, dignity, and persistence, resonating with millions of our fellow citizens in the present day. At a certain level of the problem, it is crystal clear to me that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the insight that the Holy Scriptures can ever be depended upon to shed abundant light on each and every problem that confronts the human person, in this life, in its connections with ever wider communities of nature; and also in the life of the beyond of this world.
While honoring this tradition, it seems to me that God gave us, not one great book, but two of them. The first is the Holy Scriptures themselves; and the second is the Book of Nature.
I’ve lived in the world for a while now, and on my observation (FWIW) have noticed along the way that Book 1 and Book 2 seem never to be out of sorts with each other, do not contradict each other, ever. Indeed, it is uncanny to me how the two finally resonate, revealing the “hidden meanings” in each other.
But I’m sure I’m boring you to tears by now, dear WT. So let me try to buy a point. Summarizing disparities among Christian thinkers, certain confessions of Reformed Church Christianity abominate the theory of evolution. Other confessions – e.g., the Roman Catholic Church – embrace and expound it as solid, scientifically-validated theory. Thus (surprise! surprise!) we have a difference of opinion among human beings, in the public square….
Regarding the second question, whether the second law of thermodynamics “falsifies” evolution, I need to ask: which theory of the second law did you have in mind? In Newton’s own time, nobody knew quite what to make of it, including Newton. He had simply documented, analyzed, and elucidated what seemed to him (most astutely it seems in retrospect) the results of certain seminal experimental conditions he was observing. There was no “philosophy” at stake here.
And yet subsequent reinterpreters of Newton’s Second Law seem to have qualified the law according to more well-defined (constrained) terms than Newton did. Boltzmann (late 19th century) for instance, did so. And what he came up with is the most elegant, that is truthful description of the thermodynamic behavior of the “classical gas” imaginable. It was a work of extraordinary beauty. In his own time, it was so little appreciated that I understand Boltzmann ended up by committing suicide, out of sheer despair.
So, if the “banned” Christian commentator could rest his/her argument on the “Boltzmannian regime” stipulation of the thermodynamical argument re: perfect gasses, then he/she could justify the conclusions he/she reached.
However it would seem the main point about living systems is that they do not behave thermodynamically in the manner of “perfect gasses” for, among other reasons, there is the very simple one that they are not “perfect gasses.” They are comparatively enormously “rich,” complex systems seemingly connected to an informative principle. Thus they could be expected to respond to a different thermodynamic “translation,” which as of now seems to have been but imperfectly recognized, let alone elucidated.
Anyhoot, the point is, the Christian commentator who objected that the second law precluded evolution was exactly right – but only on the condition that we are to assume that the Boltzmannian regime is in total power, and therefore all configurations of living nature are to be understood as “perfect gasses.” Somehow, I feel reasonably sure that this “human self-understanding” is not quite what God has in mind for us….
Well, that’s all I can manage at the moment, WildTurkey. Must run away and get some sleep. I have a really bad cold right now.
Good night! God bless! And thank you for speaking/writing with/to me.
I don't know why you would want me to "confess" to be an atheist? I will play act the role if you like.
Betty, you need either to stick to philosophizing, or get up to date (or at least into the 20th century) in statistical mechanics. The range of thermodynamic laws has long since been extended beyond Botzmann's ideal gases to chemical systems in general. The second law applies to everything; and the statistical interpretation of the second law applies to everything.
You lost me right about here:
"And yet subsequent reinterpreters of Newton’s Second Law seem to have qualified the law according to more well-defined (constrained) terms than Newton did."
The challenges which I have are oriented only to those who do not believe in God (believers have no reason to respond) and more specifically, those who believe their disbelief is not a religion but the only rational reaction to physical evidences. If you are interested, please let me know. Either way, I believe your questions deserve the first priority here.
Thank you for your reply!
Then, Alamo-Girl, you also need to learn some stat. mech. The claim that the second law applies only to ideal gases is over 100 years out of date. Even Boltzmann never asserted that claim; it was simply that at that time he could only prove his statistical interpretation of the second law to ideal gases.
Don't the two of you feel some duty to acquire at least a working knowledge of that on which you expound? I mean, if I claimed Plato was an existentialist, I'd be justly derided.
P = 1 / (250>)
And any other sequence would have the same.
And for the case that I provided the actual sequence tossed, that that sequence would have also had the same probability of happening.
Thus, my sequence was NO more probable than that of 50 consecutive heads, correct!
I do not wish to speak for betty boop, but I did not take her post to be delineated only to gasses, but rather to put the subject in historical context.
If you refer to my original reply to question #2 at post 1545 (especially the linked information) - you'll see that I assert the thermodynamic tab is paid in living systems by the dissipation of energy into local surroundings when information [Shannon] is accomplished, i.e. the reduction of uncertainty of a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. Information is not the message but the action, the successful communication. The DNA is as good dead as alive.
One more thing. In Newton's own time, certainly nobody knew what to make of the second law, since Newton died about a century before Carnot and Clausius formulated it.
Newton's second law: F = ma. Nothing to do with thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics; Delta S >0 for irreversible processes
The above paragraph is complete b.s., in other words.
Either learn some physics, the both of you, or lay off the airy pronouncements.
For Lurkers trying to sort all of this out: Second Law of Thermodynamics
I know the difference - never use them interchangeably - and have no intention of "laying off."
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.