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
Has the dog been breed by intelligent human breeders yet which can not cross-breed with wolves? If so we have a demonstration not only that new species can evolve, but also that they evolve under the direction of an intelligent designer.
If not -- that would suggest that natural selection itself is not up to the task either, without the working of a super-intelligent designer.
See! Both. I do argue both, in their proper context.
See my 1841.
Those are not exclusive propositions either, even by themselves as you have stated them.
I is every clear that you "proofreading" was via spellchecker and not personal examination ...
To get a comprehensive view of "entropy" one must move beyond Clausius and also examine Maxwell, Boltzman, Gibbs, Shannon, Kolmogorov and others. Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Entropy
Revisting information entropy (logical entropy - Shannon and algorithmic entropy - Kolmogorov) here are some alternative approaches related to biological systems:
Divergence and Shannon Information in Genomes
Adami: Information Theory and Molecular Biology
Here are a few sample applications of the theories, illustrating the relevance to molecular biology:
Analysis of symbolic sequences using the Jensen-Shannon divergence
Complexity of Protein-Protein Interaction networks and pathways
Y have assumed that I proofread!
That WAS the topic of discussion. How the 2nd Law of THERMODYNAMICS was being twisted by the creationists.
The objection to evolution based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics will not be complete until we have thoroughly explained the thought experiment raised by betty boop on another thread:
In sum, what is it about "life" that it should react so differently from death or non-life --- willfully choosing to live, operating molecular machinery, generating heat?
I've offered the historical perspective on "entropy" in the above post along with the Shannon-Weaver model as explanations.
I must head off to bed now and will be gone a big part of tomorrow but I look forward to reading y'alls comments and continuing this discussion later.
And the Earth has also been found to actually be the center of the Universe with all heavenly bodies revolving around it.
Was my first question. You answered "B". You rejected C and D because you claim they "safely" don't answer the question "of what occurred, not what is more likely" -- that's your wording.
Wrong. You quoted me TOTALLY out of context. What I answered was "Since we are talking about what is more likely to have occurred, we can safely discard "C" and "D", because they deal with belief and the ability to discover what occurred, not what is more likely." In other words, if you ask what is more likely, neither C nor D adequately address that question because they address beliefs and the ability to discover the answer, not which is more likely. Unless one can make no distinction, whatsoever, between the other choices, "ignorance" nor "inability to determine" are never valid answers to a "which is more likely" question.
You argue that A requires G-d and random process, and B only random process, therefore the more "logically" likely is B.
Well I can see what algebraic reduction you applied -- that is by you you call in this specific case "logic". While systematic, it is not what is generally called logic.
Don't be a jackass, I was using the word colloquially.
It is a logic biased by design to exclude G-d, by claiming that G-d is solely the province of belief and not experience or reason.
It is not designed to exclude anything. The supernatural is believed on faith. There is nothing but faith and subjective experience (of which "faith" is a subset) to support it. If the test I've employed eliminates those answers, is it a reflection of the nature of faith, and its non-rational basis.
You asked which was more likely. Positing a supernatural, all-powerful being, like G-d, J-sus, All-h, Th-r, W-den, Z-arathustra or whatever, as being more likely than any natural process, is not a rational position.
Such an answer requires proof of an entity for which there is no evidence, and which must be believed on faith. Such an answer can never be more likely than one that does not require that huge leap of faith.
For example many would assert that you cannot have existance without a Creator, nor process without a Designer.
Many people are idiots. These boards are full of people without the slightest demonstrable knowledge about the subject manner under examination and but a cursory familiarly with the English language, but who feel free to comment on and dismiss other people's work and ideas, often based on the most capricious reasons.
If they many people could actually prove these things; not give subjective expressions of their faith and fears, then the world would be their oyster. The fact that they have not leads to about two conclusions: there is no supernatural or it cannot be proved.
Thus if you wanted to be most generally logical -- you might have said "Can't be detemined". But you did not -- by that you added a godfree apriori postulate.
"Can't be determined" doesn't address the question you asked. "Which is more likely" can be answered without resorting to twisting oneself into logical knots trying to avoid the reality that a belief in the existence of any supernatural entity requires faith. And such a person who beliefs in that supernatural entity cannot fool themselves into thinking that their belief system and manner of thinking is wholly logical, rational and reasonable. Thus, "what is more likely" can be determined, simply by saying that the answer which requires the most faith is the least likely. This isn't an a priori exclusion of the "God" answer, but simply a recognition of the nature of faith.
If you asked, "Which caused us to be here now as we observe...", then perhaps your "D" would be a decent answer. (It wouldn't be the best answer. You'd need a "none of the above" or "other" in there...) But, as it asks for likelihood, it is not even a good answer.
However like you, I too, would reject "Don't know". It's a disingenuous cowards' response.
Well, I would reject it, but I wouldn't make any silly moral judgments on the person choosing that answer. "Don't know" would be a perfectly valid answer under certain circumstances. If the person answering did not know what the attributes of this purported "God" was, or what the "God-free Random Processes" entailed, they might simply not know which was more likely.
Oh, dear God. I hope that this isn't what your whole coin toss analogy was all about. If so, then all I can say is that in a wholly and truly random process, no one state or outcome is more likely than any other, subject to the specifics of the process. Existence is not a wholly and truly random process. Thus, your statement that blinking into existence is as possible as any other states of the universe is not only wrong, but ridiculously so.
The live bird flew away because he was smarter than the dumb creationist.
This is really just a more sophisticated way of saying evolution theory must include abiogenesis.
Just in case you may be confused in the matter, I don't regard any of you gentlemen as swine or any other type of animal. About as close as I can come personally to characterizing another person around here as any type of animal would be to say that, IMHO, WildTurkey's screen name is apt.
As to whether bvw's assertion was just or unjust, I guess that would depend on the person he was describing. Notwithstanding, I would note that to act like a swine doesn't necessarily make one a swine. Of course, you caught the Biblical reference in that phrase....
I am probably not alone in noticing that there are some very rude people who participate on these threads, and some of them seem to wear their rudeness like some kind of badge of honor. The criticism goes out to individuals on both "sides" of the debate here. FWIW
While I'm letting my hair down, may I note that at your personal behest, and that of another FReeper, I actually undertook to write a short, very general piece addressed to our resident creationists on why the second law doesn't violate evolution, and why evolution is not inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. I didn't hear a word back from any of my Christian friends; but I was mercilessly flamed by some of your own colleagues.
And then you write to me, and say you lose respect for me when another FReeper complains to me of having received like treatment, and I don't rebuke him for it -- hullo!!!! What's going on here?
It appears there's a double standard at work here, Ichneumon. I don't exactly see you leaping into the fray to defend me or bvw, et al., against such abuse from your cadre of respondents.
Let's all just try to "grow up" and soldier on, O.K.?
Well I wasn't speaking of abiogenesis there, js1138. (Did you want to discuss that?) I agree with you that existing proposals are hypotheses, not theories. But you got to start somewhere!!! And it seems science usually does start with hypotheses, and then tries to falsify them. If they stand up to repeated test, then they may be well on their way to becoming theories at some point. But surely, the hypothesis of abiogenesis is far, far from that point. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks for writing, js1138!
Thus? "Thus" by what? That the universe is not a "wholly and truly random process" -- therefore you assert design, AND intelligent design. For design implies intelligence. Because you find yourself in all your glories existing! Hooray!
Because from that you CAN deduce a G-d, a G-d constantly directing the process, and a Merciful One. Why merciful? Because only a merciful G-d would not TAUNT you with meaningless false memories of existance prior to the very picosecnd you read this, taunt you by popping the whole universe, you and all you glorious memories into existance just *now*. It is the most logical of deductions.
Yet without such a benign G-d, the universe, you and all your memories could -- by godfree logic -- equally as popped up just *now* in this exact state as in any other state.
Thus? "Thus" by what?
In your inability to quote me in context the result of a organic disease or is it genetically based?
You stated regarding the idea of blinking into existence a microsecond ago,
No evidence? There's no evidence against it. It is one of the possible states of the universe, and as equally possible as any other.I wrote, in response:
[I]n a wholly and truly random process, no one state or outcome is more likely than any other, subject to the specifics of the process. Existence is not a wholly and truly random process. Thus, your statement that blinking into existence is as possible as any other states of the universe is not only wrong, but ridiculously so.
In other words, you are correct that any specific state would be as likely as any other, but only in a wholly random universe. We do not live in a wholly random universe. Thus, any specific state in our universe is not as likely as any other.
That the universe is not a "wholly and truly random process" -- therefore you assert design, AND intelligent design. For design implies intelligence.
False. There is more to the universe than Random v. Designed. That is a wholly false dichotomy. Further, nothing in design implies intelligence. That is the shortcut of the intellectually lazy. Intelligence could lead to design, but the presence of the latter does not necessarily indicate the former.
Because from that you CAN deduce a G-d, a G-d constantly directing the process, and a Merciful One. Why merciful? Because only a merciful G-d would not TAUNT you with meaningless false memories of existance prior to the very picosecnd you read this, taunt you by popping the whole universe, you and all you glorious memories into existance just *now*. It is the most logical of deductions.
Okay, skippy, whatever you say. If you want to believe that, feel free. You're a regular Thomas Aquinas. But I ask you, why then is God ("-" isn't a letter, by the way. It's punctuation.) TAUNTing us by putting evidence of evolution everywhere, and no evidence of design anywhere? Oh, that's right. Natural processes full of ad hoc solutions, evolutionary dead-ends and imperfections are all part of the marvelous "design"
First -- before I frame my answer. Let me call you a series of highly unflattering and rude names, for I have sensed that is your desire. You sniveling twit, you pompous ass, you canker-infested glob of pus. There, is that staisfactory?
And on to the response ...
* * *
Of course design infers intelligence. That is by its very definition. That is an intrinsic, inseperable part of what the term "design" means.
Ha ha ha. Whatever gets you off, junior.
Of course design infers intelligence. That is by its very definition. That is an intrinsic, inseperable part of what the term "design" means.
A non-random, yet intelligent action could create design. Look at the evolution of animals or the shapes of galaxies. Both show elements of design, but not intelligence. Snowflakes and ice crystals exhibit design, but, again, no intelligence in creating them.
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.