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
That seems to be the underlying point of ID, to illustrate the need for an omniscient being. I'm not in a position to say this isn't the case, but omniscience seems like a dead end to me. How can you be conscious if all of time and space is perceived simultaneously? Rotten luck, an eternity of ennui.
However, such a field of view would be the aspect of a mathematical structure in a higher dimension:
A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.
He doesn't have time to correct you, but he does have time to infer you are an idiot. He implies he has mastered particle theory, but he doesn't make time to point out how in error you are. But, otoh, he does MAKE time to attack Christians and Creationism here at FR. These folks are getting more and more predictable.
"I will leave YECs alone when they stop trying to force their ridiculous and anti-scientific ideas on public schools."
I see. So if YECs take their kids out of public school, and choose to home school, would that be ok with you? Or should some gov't entity be assigned the task to enforce 'science' education upon all kids?
They can bring up their kids as they wish. It's not the gummint's business.
So, what you are saying is that if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no human there to hear, it still makes a sound?
Thank you. That one has been bugging me since high school! 8^>
Wiki-pedia schmiki-pedia
The world was transformed last night. N Korea has nukes, Charles will marry what's her name, and cells are intelligent.
LOL RobRoy! Sure. The critturs can hear it. At least it seems reasonable to conclude that they do, for we know that critturs respond sensitively to signals they receive from their environment. Presumably they do so, even when we humans aren't there to check up on them. :^)
That is where we differ. I simply don't accept that statement.
But, alas, you were challenging us for a definition of "matter" with regard to physics. And that is what I offered as a response in post 2039.
Therefore, I prefer my "geometric" description that matter has "space/time coordinates and thus consists of fields (which are defined as existing in all points of space/time) and geometry". That hedges the question about Higgs, dark matter and dark energy - but, I believe, captures the idea you have been asserting. If I had been making your assertions, I would have used the term "corporeal" rather than "matter".
At any rate, perhaps Physicist can help by providing for us (and thus authenticating) a definition for the term "matter" - after which we can adjust our prior arguments to be accurate.
OK, you rule out in principle that information is not "material." So, what do you rule in? I mean beyond making a simple, sweeping contrary assertion, what is the basis of your supposition that information must have an exclusively material basis, other than a strong prejudice in favor of a theory of omnicompetent matter? What evidence do you have for asserting this, etc.?
I hadn't heard of Bruce Lipton at all, but I presume you are speaking of this person.
If you are trying to equate Lipton to what betty boop and I (and Schneider and Adami et al) are saying about "information theory and molecular biology" you would be in error.
Information (Shannon) is the reduction of uncertainty (entropy) in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is successful communication. It does not address the value or meaning of the message at all, hence "intelligence" is not part of the formulation.
Of course, one might consider the semiosis to be a sign of intelligence - the encoding and decoding of the message (which in biological systems is the DNA or RNA) - but the Shannon-Weaver model couldn't care less about the value of the message. It is only concerned with the successful communication of it.
Wow. Awesome post.
To your side "everything" is corporeal. The definition of "reality" or "all that there is" being "that which exists in nature".
betty boop and I see quite a bit more than the corporeal: mathematical structures, Platonist forms, pi, geometry, information, qualia (pain/pleasure, likes/dislikes), consciousness, the mind, soul and spirit to name a few.
The wikipedia definition has a great insight at the bottom of its definition of matter - that it stands in contrast to form. In your worldview, evidently there is no form - but rather that form is an epiphenomenon.
It is what I have asserted in less elegant language. I also see that intelligence is a property of the particles that make up cells, and of bodies that cells form, and of socities that bodies form. Blame it on Teilhard. Also Mandelbrot. The same organization on scales from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. Are we a trace contaminant of the universe?
The form is function, process. All quantities and qualities are Bridgman processes. This encompasses corporia and behavior and moral law.
Existance causes itself? Mastrubatory or tautologic. Still a deism. And flawed too, even accorded to Occam.
So what makes G-d a simpler theory? Only that we are as we are. "We are as we are" is not the same as "It all is".
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.