Evolution Intelligent Design

Answering Every Question

Spread the love

In this UD post Ken Miller is quoted as saying:

“The argument for intelligent design basically depends on saying, ‘You haven’t answered every question with evolution,’… Well, guess what? Science can’t answer every question.”

No, ID says, You haven’t answered the most fundamental question about evolution: the origin of biological information. In fact, the mechanism you propose as an answer to that question is — logically (the challenge of producing functionally integrated machinery in a step-by-tiny-step process with each step being both functional and progressively advantageous), mathematically (the huge improbabilities created by combinatorial explosion), and empirically (Behe’s demonstration in the field of the severe limits of random mutation and natural selection) — inadequate to the task.

In addition, ID theory does not depend on the inadequacy of the Darwinian mechanism, it also relies upon a rational and reasonable inference to design based upon what Stephen Meyer refers to as the known cause-and-effect structure of the world, that is, that intelligence is the only known source of complex specified information.

This is one of the most maddening things about Ken Miller. He consistently misrepresents the claims of ID theorists.

18 Replies to “Answering Every Question

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I’ve read one Kenneth Miller book, Finding Darwin’s God, and part of another, Only a Theory.

    He does consistently misrepresent ID, which is bad enough, but he’s also inconsistent.

    In Finding Darwin’s God he kicks God out of the universe only to let Him back in through the rear door of quantum events. At this point I can’t recall whether he gave an argument for how and why God can act at the microscopic scale but not at the macroscopic.

    I wonder how many quantum events it took to raise Jesus from the dead.

    In Only a Theory he writes:

    The charge that intelligent design is just another form of creationism may be resented by many in the movement, but it’s the unavoidable conclusion of taking design seriously as a scientific idea.

    One has to wonder if elsewhere he argues that one cannot take ID seriously as a scientific idea.

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    broken link

    Only a Theory

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Ken Miller states;

    “Well, guess what? Science can’t answer every question.”

    to which the apt reply is;

    “Well guess what? Science is impossible without God!”

    ——-

    John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video remix
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/

  4. 4
    stjones says:

    Miller and his ilk have no choice but to misrepresent ID. With their flimsy weapons they can defeat only straw men. So they have to invent one they can overcome.

    Every time a DTB (Darwinist True Believer) trots out “creationism”, I know I am dealing with someone whose quiver contains nothing more lethal than bits of paper and wet spaghetti.

  5. 5
    zeroseven says:

    “No, ID says, You haven’t answered the most fundamental question about evolution: the origin of biological information”.

    I know this is said all the time, but evolution doesn’t purport to answer this question. It is concerned with the variation of biological forms. If ID is concerned about the origin of biological information, and given evolution does not address this question, why do so many IDists keep attacking evolution?

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Miller and his ilk have no choice but to misrepresent ID.

    They have a choice. Furthermore, Miller, as a professing Christian, has more than a choice, he has a responsibility.

    I can understand Dawkins and his ilk.

    But Christians???

    And Miller claims to be fighting for the soul of America. He should be battling for his own soul.

    God save us.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    …the contention that function is lost when any part of an “irreducibly complex” system is removed – fails. Only a Theory, p. 57

    No, Prof. Miller, it doesn’t.

    By definition if you remove a part and it continues to function it is not IC.

    Why lie?

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Hidden within these numbers is the same flawed arguments that doomed irreducible complexity. Behe’s math requires that all of the mutations that produce a CCC must occur together. Only a Theory, p. 68

    Mathematicians, help me out here. Are the probabilities any different if the events are independent?

    IOW, if we have two events, E1 and E2, and the probability of E1 is x and the probability of E2 is y, does it even matter whether the two events occur simultaneously if they are independent events?

  9. 9
    GilDodgen says:

    If Miller represents mainstream Catholicism and Catholic doctrine and teaching (which I don’t believe he does), Catholicism has nothing of any meaningful substance to do with Christianity.

    I hope and pray that mainstream Catholicism is more accurately represented by UD’s beloved Denyse.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    zeroseven, but alas for you, neo-Darwinism does purport to explain all the diversity of life on earth. That you would say that neo-Darwinism does not address the generation of functional information in life, but only addresses ‘variation of biological forms’ is a pathetically weak ‘excuse’. A excuse that is actually a admission by you that neo-Darwinism has no evidence whatsoever for the generation of complex functional information!!!

  11. 11
    Bruce David says:

    “This is one of the most maddening things about Ken Miller. He consistently misrepresents the claims of ID theorists.”

    They all do don’t they? Ultimately, this is a major factor in support of ID–the Darwinists simply cannot address the theory as it actually is; they are forced to defend via straw man arguments.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    OT; Gil you may appreciate this; here are 19 short video clips of William Dembski on the ‘Closer To Truth’ program;

    http://www.closertotruth.com/s.....038;page=1

  13. 13
    Joseph says:

    zeroseven,

    If the theory of evolution cannot/ does not say anything about the origin of information then it cannot say anything on how the diversity of living organisms arose as the two are directly linked.

  14. 14
    Joseph says:

    It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.

    So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullscorch it is.

  15. 15
    Proponentist says:

    If Miller represents mainstream Catholicism and Catholic doctrine and teaching (which I don’t believe he does), Catholicism has nothing of any meaningful substance to do with Christianity.

    Ken Miller believes that God did not know that human beings would eventually arise from evolution.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/10121

    So, Mr. Miller has a difficult time even representing mainstream theism, much less Catholicism.

    As for Miller’s endless misrepresentations of ID, after having been corrected numerous times, this quote from a recent Darwin-Dissenter comes to mind:

    “Distorting an opponent’s position into a straw-man that is easily knocked down is a classic intellectual fallacy. Debating a dogmatic Darwinist can be frustrating, because it’s like arguing with a twelve-year-old child that has no critical thinking skills.” -David Deming
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....darwinism/

  16. 16
    Proponentist says:

    It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

    More good evidence is in this statement:

    I know this is said all the time, but evolution doesn’t purport to answer this question [of the origin of information]. It is concerned with the variation of biological forms.

    The theory of evolution has nothing to say on this, and evolutionists insist on that point all the time.

    With nothing to say on the origin of information, the idea of common descent has no foundation.

  17. 17
    Joseph says:

    So, according to Miller, Jesus could have been a big-brained dinosaur or a toga-wearing mollusk?

    And just how could either of those types of organisms write the Bible? 🙄 🙂

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘Debating a dogmatic Darwinist can be frustrating, because it’s like arguing with a twelve-year-old child that has no critical thinking skills.”

    Please do not insult twelve-year-old children no matter how childish they are in argumentation. At least there is hope for the twelve-year-old to grow out of his childish ways 🙂

Leave a Reply