Posted on 08/26/2004 7:41:29 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
Proceedings of the Bioligical Society of Washington August 25, 2004
Link to PDF only. No text.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
If Meyer wants to play cook, he must put up with the heat.
Maine truly has a death-wish. The Coercive Utopian-type hippies migrated up here in the 60s-70s because land for their yurt communes was dirt cheap, & they still control the politics of the state.
Steely-eyed, tight-mouthed, empowered women with long grey hair in Earth Shoes & granny glasses still flock to the Natural Food store in Subarus plastered with Kuchinich/Kerry/Give Peace a Chance/Gay Rights bumper stickers.
Re: The Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine.
Does anyone else remember what Rush said that day in late Feb/early March of 1998 when the WHO released the results of its massive, worldwide, 3-year study of the effects of 2nd-hand tobacco smoke? It had been feverishly awaited by the anti-tobacco Nazis, who were certain it was going to justify the criminalization of smoking.
Rush could hardly speak for laughing, & his lead-in was something like, "Well, folks, you'd better listen up because THIS is something you're not going to hear about from the evening news or the morning paper..".
When he tried to read the concluding "Summary" (that the only "effect" they'd found was "compelling evidence that 2nd-hand smoke seems to protect against minor respiratory infections"), he kept going off again.
Rush was right, I have never once heard or read anything that report from any MMS. Have any of you? Until last year, at least, PFTFM was still running non-stop, long, expensive TV/radio ads about the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke.
As Goethe said, there is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.
I did that on purpose to demonstrate the truth of Goethe's words. I will now try to post it where it's supposed to go.
Kudos to you guys for your extensive (and yet incomplete!) review, although it is far, far, far too kind to the simple-minded faker and promulgator of bull-hockey who refers to himself as Dr. Meyer.As usual, the lack of integrity on the part of the pseudoscientific fraudster is only alluded to between the lines. So I am left wondering what the difference is between a “lie” and a “false claim,” especially when the “false claim” is made by someone who cannot reasonably argue that he was unaware of the falseness of his claim and who is clearly motivated not to tell the truth.
Um, ... could it be that "Lying for the Lord" doesn't count on your sin-rap sheet?
===========================
On August 4th, 2004 the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed biology journal, published an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The article entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” appears in the current issue of the Proceedings (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).
In the article, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
On August 26th, a critique of the article authored by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke and Wesley Elsberry appeared on the Pandas Thumb website. For this reason, we have decided to make Dr. Meyer's article available now in HTML format on this website. (Off prints are also available from Discovery Institute by writing to Keith Pennock at Kpennock@discovery.org.) We trust that the Pandas Thumb critique of Meyer’s article will seem a good deal less persuasive, and less substantive than Meyer’s article itself, once readers have had a chance to read Meyer’s essay. Dr. Meyer will, of course, respond in full to Gishlick et al. in due course.
In the meantime, enjoy!
=================================
I am eagerly anticipating Meyer's response to the jackals at the P-Thumb.
read later
As reported by The Scientist:
Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information who was an editor of the Proceedings at the time, told The Scientist via E-mail that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."
"The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication," Sternberg said.
Recently, various news agencies have reported on the growing controversy surrounding the publication of an article arguing for the theory of intelligent design in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.
In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in new life forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.
The publication of a paper explicitly advocating intelligent design in such a prominent place has generated both intense interest and a fire-storm of criticism.
Below is some background information that will help you make sense of the ongoing debate in the scientific community.
Contact Rob Crowther at Discovery Institute, rob@discovery.org, to arrange interviews with Dr. Meyer, and/or a Discovery spokesperson. Click here to read Dr. Meyer's article in it entirety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Backgrounder
Media Backgrounder on publication of article advocating intelligent design in peer-reviewed journal
What is the theory of intelligent design? The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
What does Dr. Meyer argue in the paper? In the article Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Do advocates of intelligent design theory publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature? Yes. Previously advocates of intelligent design have published peer-reviewed scientific books, articles in peer-reviewed scientific anthologies, and articles in peer-edited scientific conference proceedings. Additionally, design theorists such as Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Michael Behe have recently published articles in peer-reviewed journals such as the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and Protein Science.
There are currently several peer-reviewed articles available on the Discovery Institute website (www.discovery.org) including:
“The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, by Stephen C. Meyer, in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, August 2004
“Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”, by Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, in Protein Science, The Protein Society August 2004
“Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and Prospect for Intelligent Design”, by Paul A. Nelson & Jonathan Wells, in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
“Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems”, By: Michael J. Behe in Philosophy of Science 67 (March 2000), University of Chicago Press
“Reinstating Design within Science”, by William A. Dembski, in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additionally peer-reviewed and peer-edited books addressing design theory have appeared with Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press respectively. There is also a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations.
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that “has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). The theory of intelligent design specifically challenges this neo-Darwinist claim.
Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism as its critics? No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Design theorists such as --Dr. Meyer-- develop their theories about the origins of living systems based upon scientific evidence. Intelligent design is an inference from biological evidence, not a deduction from religious authority.
Creationists also believe that the earth was created roughly 10,000 years ago and believe that flood geology explains the earth's geology. Most proponents of design believe the earth is 4 plus billion years old and reject flood geology. Both the epistemological approach and the propositional content of creationism and design theory positions are very different. It is grossly inaccurate, therefore, to mischaracterize intelligent design proponents as creationists.
Why do critics of intelligent design continue to equate it with creationism? The charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is merely a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. In any case, labels are ultimately a diversion.
Who is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and what are his credentials? Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle. He earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.
Dr. Meyer recently co-edited “Darwinism, Design, and Public Education” (Michigan State University Press, 2003) and is the co-author of “Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe” (Ignatius 2002). His most recent scientific articles have appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and in scientific anthologies published by Cambridge University Press, MSU Press, and Wessex Institute of Technology press.
What is the Center for Science and Culture? The Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program that supports the research and writing of scholars and scientists who are challenging the worldview of scientific materialism. Many of these scientists are also challenging neo-Darwinism and/or are developing the scientific theory of intelligent design. Discovery’s Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities. The Center’s Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
What is Discovery Institute? Founded in 1990, the Institute is a national, non-profit, non-partisan policy and research organization, headquartered in Seattle, WA. It has programs on a variety of issues, including regional transportation development, economics and technology policy, legal reform, and bioethics. The Institute’s founder and president is Bruce Chapman, who has a long history in public policy at both the national and regional levels. Mr. Chapman is a former director of the United States Census Bureau, and a past American ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria. Mr. Chapman has also served as a member of the Seattle City Council and as Washington State’s Secretary of State.
Is Intelligent Design testable?
SHHHH!
===================================================
Dear Visitor,
Controversy and confusion surround the recent publication of the paper "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I was the managing editor of the Proceedings at the time of publication of the paper and I handled the review and editing process. The material on this website will clarify and resolve many of the disputes about the paper.
Sincerely,
Rick v. Sternberg September 16, 2004
=================================
Now we just need Dr. Meyer to hurry and respond to his critics. Mike Gene from ARN has already fired a salvo on Meyer's behalf:
Dr. Meyer and the Discovery Institute have responded to their fiercest critics:
One Long Bluff: The Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article
Let's save the heated debates for after the election. I thought this would be an interesting read for those who have been following along.
Neo-Darwinism’s Unsolved Problem of the Origin of Morphological Novelty
This is the second paper in a series of installments planned by the DI. The first was entitled "One Long Bluff"
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.