Steve Matheson Fires Back

Steve has posted a response to the Discovery Institute's claim that he admitted design was the best alternative. It is here. One of the key arguments that design proponents (or "cdesignproponentsists" if you prefer) put out is that evolutionary theory does not have a good explanation for origins of life questions. Stephen Meyer, author of The Signature in the Cell, believes that this is where design comes in. Matheson responds:

It may be the case that we don't have a complete account of the origin of life, and it's certainly true that we don't have a complete account of the origin of genetic information control systems. But such an admission implies nothing about whether such an account is possible or even likely, and that's where Meyer would have to do his philosophical work in order to help his case. In other words, to assert that "we haven't explained X" is most assuredly not to assert that "we cannot explain X." Think about it: there would be no such thing as science if this were the case. Scientists are all about asserting that "we haven't explained X," then proposing a way to change that.

Origins of life questions have never been a center of evolutionary biology studies. During the formation of the synthesis, these question were largely ignored and it was not until the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953 that these question were associated with evolutionary theory. These question are, in a sense, like those governing those of the Big Bang. One can theorize back only so far until it becomes a conjecture. Evolution deals primarily with the changes in established life forms and with common descent issues. One can look at the fossil record and see that, as one moves through time, there is greater diversity of life from simpler forms to more complex forms and that transitional fossils (fishapods, frogamanders) exist at junctures that, chronologically, precede in one case, teleost fish and tetrapods and in the other case, frogs and salamanders. This is very largely corroborated by DNA studies, which reflect the similarities and differences in organisms and have given rise to divergence trees. That these trees mirror, to a very large extent, the fossil record is not exactly a smoking gun for universal common descent but it is pretty good model from which to work.

Hi experience was not entirely positive, however:

Anyway, Meyer spent a lot of time explaining why it matters that certain origin-of-life postulates are ineffective, but he never bothered to show that the current theories are in fact ineffective. What he did instead was attack a strawman (random flying-together of biological structures) at length, then erect a second one (a crude caricature of self-organization ideas) and attack it more briefly. Current thought focuses on the RNA World, and Meyer completely omitted any discussion of it. He meant to mislead the audience, and I think he was successful.

This straw man argument is not so unusual. While the Discovery Institute continually claims that evolutionary biologists put up straw men arguments about design, every single argument against evolution made by the writers there, from Phillip Johnson to William Dembski, takes the form of one. Steve's second and third posts should be up soon.

----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - In The Lap of the Gods, Pt. 2 (Backing Track Rough Mix)
via FoxyTunes

Discovery Institute Claims Victory

The Discovery Institute is claiming victory in the recent symposium at Biola on May 14, in which Stephen Meyer faced his critics. In a post on Evolution News & Views, Rob Crowther writes:

The critics were Steve Matheson, a theistic evolutionist from Calvin College, and Arthur Hunt a Darwinist and biologist from the University of Kentucky. Both have written critically of SITC and intelligent design and were clearly not very enamored of the thesis of Meyer’s book, that the best explanation for the origins of biological information is that it comes from an intelligent source, a mind.

At least they started out seemingly unimpressed. I am certain Hunt remained so, but I’m not so sure about Matheson. He was critical to be sure, but in an amazingly candid and very revealing moment, he exposed his own presupposition that keeps him from accepting intelligent design theory.

Matheson basically conceded that ID is the best explanation currently on the table, but not one that he likes. Yes, he agreed, codes are produced by minds. Yes, there is digital code in DNA. Yes, design is a good explanation for that code. So, Meyer responded, you are admitting that the explanation I’ve offered, intelligent design, is currently best? The point wasn’t lost on the audience, or on Matheson I suspect.

Steve has not responded to this post—yet. Without the entire context, it is difficult to determine whether or not this is a fair representation of what Steve meant. It certainly puts the ball in his court.

Arthur Hunt, on the other hand, has written a somewhat technical response to the meeting here in which he suggests that Stephen Meyer conceded some very important points regarding specified information in proteins:

...if some protein functions do not require lots of specified information, then these should be quite accessible to what ID proponents would call “Darwinian mechanisms”. This concession has lots of ramifications – it renders Doug Axe’s suggestions about the isolation of functional proteins in sequence space somewhat less relevant, and it weakens the case (I suspect an important aspect of “Darwin’s Dilemma”) that a supposed requirement for new proteins during evolution (such as occurred in the Cambrian Explosion) makes such evolution improbable or impossible, at least without intelligent design. More generally, while it may be that absolute statements are not made by ID proponents, I think it important to have ID advocates backing down from claims or even hints that all (or even most) proteins have high specified information contents.

It has been a hall mark of William Dembski's research (if I am characterizing it correctly) that proteins have high levels of specified complexity and that evolutionary mechanisms cannot attain that level of complexity. Aside from the fact that in every instance, Dembski's modeling fails to duplicate real biotic environments, Hunt is correct that this is a major concession.

Stephen Meyer Faces His Critics: Update 2

I received this note from the Apologetics Department at Biola University about the possibility of getting a transcript of the panel discussion on May 14. Here is what they say:

Hello James,

Thank you for your note. While we will not have a transcript of the evening available, we are recording the event and it will be available to purchase as a DVD. To place your order, please call our office at 562.906.4570. Let me know if you have any questions!

Kristen Anderson
Administrative Assistant
M.A. in Christian Apologetics
Biola University
(562) 906-4570

Stephen Meyer to Face His Critics: Update

Somehow, I linked to the wrong description of the event that I posted about yesterday. Here is the correct announcement:

Dr. Stephen Meyer has written a book that is shaking the evolutionary establishment like “Darwin’s Black Box” and “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” did in previous decades. Meyer has assembled a set of ideas based on the latest research on living cells that must be answered if traditional Darwinism is to survive. So we have assembled a powerful group of credentialed critics of Meyer’s “Intelligent Design” position to let him have it with both barrels. No hiding in dark libraries or murky laboratories - if Meyer has the goods, he needs to debate his toughest critics face to face! In addition, we will be screening some clips of the latest Illustra Media DVD titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” and providing free copies to each family who attends.

I have just heard from Steve Matheson, who will be on the panel. Steve is no friend of Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer's most recent book, so I suspect it will be a lively time.

BTW, the event description that I accidentally linked to takes place the following day and is called "The Cambrian Explosion: The Data Behind Darwin's Dilemma." It is hosted by "Paul Nelson, Rick Sternberg, Doug Axe, Stephen Meyer, John Bloom, and more."

----------------
Now playing: John Coltrane - My Favorite Things
via FoxyTunes

Stephen Meyer to Face His Critics

Stephen Meyer is to lead a panel discussion on "Darwin's Dilemma," that there appears to be evidence against "Darwinism" being the explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. Here is the Discovery Institute's Announcement:

The “Cambrian Explosion” is one of the most difficult and dynamic counterexamples to Darwinian evolution that the fossil record has ever revealed. We have assembled a group of experts in the field to talk in detail about this “hard evidence” that cannot be easily dismissed by proponents of Darwinism. Most of our speakers are those featured in the DVD “Darwin’s Dilemma.” So come and hear the scientists themselves expound upon the data.

The event is going to held at Biola University, in La Mirada, California, on May 14. For those of us without the bus fare, it would be nice if a transcript of the event was published, especially since Dr. Meyer rarely answers his critics in print. I will write Mr. Luskin to see if that can be done.

----------------
Now playing: Emily Remler - Hot House
via FoxyTunes