Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

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.

© All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com