Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are Ken Miller and Francis Collins ID proponents when it comes to the Origin of Life?

William Dembski
June 22, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is an edited report on Ken Miller’s talk that he gave at Texas Tech back in March 2006 (go here) as well as a portion of a keynote address given by Francis Collins at the 2002 ASA meeting in Malibu (go here):

Ken Miller’s talk was well attended — the auditorium was stacked (400+) with biology professors and their compulsory biology students (for extra credit). The talk was surprisingly fair on the subject of God, but it was terribly unfair (and disjointed) on the subject of Intelligent Design. Almost no facts were given and nearly all of his argument dealt with the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial in which he testified. As usual, Intelligent Design was conflated with creationism. The most interesting part of the talk for me came at the end when the following question was posed: “Since biologists don’t really have a good grasp on the origin of life itself, and since life has clearly resulted some kind of self-organization to go from a bunch of chemicals to the point where we are today, couldn’t the origin of life be the point at which God’s involvement in creation was direct?” As this question was posed, at least a third of the students in the crowd nodded their heads yes. The professors in the crowd just looked confused; and scared. To my surprise however, Dr. Miller said, “absolutely!” That made the professors look even more confused. During the book signing afterwards, I approached Dr. Miller and told him I appreciated him bringing up the possibility of God and science as not being mutually exclusive. I then chastised him for not fairly treating both sides of the argument. His response was that he didn’t have time and he was asked by the professors [read politburo] to cover certain material more. I reminded him of the importance of ethics in science. I then told him I believed he had a very important mission in this world and that he should follow it. I walked away as he looked uncomfortable.

——————

[Collins speaking:] Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the God-of-the-gaps. However, I think it is noteworthy that this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray.

Why shouldn’t Miller and Collins be called ID proponents (or at least ID sympathizers) when it comes to the origin of life? And if ID is scientifically valid at the origin of life, aren’t they on a slippery slope? If ID is potentially valid at the origin of life, what is to preclude its validity for the subsequent history of life?

Comments
Chris Hyland, Ken Miller is a fraud. He gives lectures where he wilfully misrepresents the ID position. He testified that ID is a form of special creationsim at Dover, whatever that is without defining it there. He has debated Michael Behe and they are both Catholics so he must know Michael Behe's position on ID and creationism. So, yes Ken Miller is a dishonest person or stupid. Take your pick. I cannot understand why that is "my opinion" when he obviously distorts things when under oath. Unless you do not think distorting things under oath is being dishonest.jerry
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT

DaveScot: have you considered the possibility of reincarnation, and the associated law of karma? It is the spiritual equivalent of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The terrific cruelty of some apparently unfair or unwarranted fates are obviously matched by the terrific cruelty of positively evil actions. In the ongoing cycle of incarnations, the soul finds those conditions which are necessary for its development. If someone has sown cruelty, he must in turn experience it in order to come to a complete understanding of its horrible effects. This may at first sound harsh, but not nearly as harsh by a long shot as the notion of a completely arbitrary system in which chance doles out grossly differing conditions for no knowable reason whatsoever. In fact, a true understanding of this law leads to great compassion for those who suffer, since we are able to recognize that they are on another part of the wheel of life, where we might also find ourselves one day, in need of compassion and help. Also, it is about learning, not punishment. Only through experiencing the same can I come to know it completely. I once read a great story in National Geographic about a group of villagers in Tibet. These people have a very special and compassionate way of dealing with handicapped children BECAUSE they believe that the handicaps are a result of karma.

Also, consider that suffering is a relative condition: there are many people who willingly take on suffering which is not necessary out of a conviction that their actions will help others. This inner state makes the suffering bearable, and can be the basis of releasing them from karmic burdens. Others, however, can bear almost no deviation from a comfortable norm without violently recoiling and blaming, cursing and accusing. This striking difference is only explicable in terms of a differing spiritual maturity. I always think of the example of starvation: many times, you will find hunger and poverty given as excuses or "causes" for the most disgusting behaviors imaginable. On the other hand, you have people who would willingly starve themselves to death out of conviction for a cause.

You seem comfortable with the concept of a lawful universe on a physical level. I think you could consider,(just consider) the possibility of a lawful universe on a spiritual level. Many conundrums are resolved through such an approach. Just food for thought.

have you considered the possibility of reincarnation, and the associated law of karma? Certainly. I'm nearly convinced that Richard Dawkins will be returning as a dung beetle, for instance, while Wesley Elsberry will be viewing the world through the eyes of a weasel. Oh hold it, Wesley's already doing that. Let's make it a prairie dog. -ds tinabrewer
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
"How stupid do you have to be to suppose that God built a first organism but did not build it with its future goals in mind?" If it was the Christian God as described in the bible then fair enough, but if we are not assuming that then it seems entirely plausible to me that the first life could have been created and then seeded on earth as some kind of experiment for example. Whether or not an intelligence performed some kind of frontloading or interfered with evolution does not mean that there was a specific goal, eg human beings as they currently exist.Chris Hyland
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT

Hello Satya,

Nice to have a Hindu in the tent.

Link to Dembski's explanation of evil didn't work.

I'll entertain complaints about suffering in the world once people have stopped being greedy, selfish and insensitive. Then we'll talk.

Shortly, it's all about responsibility. I mean, a major component of real spiritual growth is about taking responsibility. We aren't worms, we aren't children, and we're not here to be treated like dogs in a kennel. God can't "intervene" because it would accomplish nothing. The only way we'll live in paradise is when the desires of our hearts are pure. You can't take selfish people and "place" them in paradise. Paradise isn't a place as much as a spiritual condition. The one thing God can't do is force us to be good.

I'll entertain complaints about suffering in the world once people have stopped being greedy, selfish and insensitive. Then we'll talk. How convenient. In the meantime tiny children that haven't lived long enough to be greedy, selfish, or insenstive suffer. If you decide to talk about it start out by telling me what they did wrong. -ds avocationist
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
I agree with JohnnyB in comment 10- If you are ID proponent for the origin of life then you are an ID proponent period. That is because if life did not arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type (unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. Off topic- check out the 12th comment: http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2006summer/evo-main.html :)Joseph
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn’t do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson Just because I’m willing to admit a divine or some other intelligent foot in the door at the time life first appeared on this planet doesn’t mean I’m willing to admit that foot ever appeared again. I need compelling evidence for each appearance of that foot and following Occam’s Razor I will shave the number of intercessions to the bare minimum. There are only two possible intervention points I’m willing to entertain right now and that is at the beginning of the universe and at the beginning of the earth’s history. -ds Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in Englandbevets
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Also, I don't see how being ID on the origin-of-life is ANY different from being completely ID. How stupid do you have to be to suppose that God built a first organism but did not build it with its future goals in mind?johnnyb
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Michaels I defend ID because it is the most rational explanation for the empirical evidence. I have no bias for or against divinity. A divine presence (divine defined as omnipotent/omniscient) is a possibility but one that I can find no compelling evidence either for or against. I tend to lean towards deism as the universe itself and the laws which govern it seem far too contrived to be an accident but that's not a real conviction - just the way I'd bet if I had to bet on it. I do have a bias for modern Christianity as a superior cement to bind together a fair & successful civilization of a kind I want to live in and that I want my children to inherit. In that way my hackles are raised by anti-religionists who in the U.S. might as well be called anti-Christian. They are a destructive influence. So there's two reasons I defend ID - one because it's the best explanation and two because the most vocal of its opponents are a destructive influence on the culture that I cherish and wish to preserve for my descendants. As to other matter - God intervening in comtemporary affairs - I don't need to consult anyone to know that if God is intervening it is haphazard and unequal intervention. I'd rather presume a non-interventionist policy than presume that God is unfair. And I still have a problem with a living God able to intervene who doesn't as that seems unnecessarily cruel. There's an old saying "have the courage to change the things you can change and the wisdom to know what you cannot change". I can't change the nature of God, if there even is a God, so I don't dwell on it. I do what I can to make the world a better place and trust that's enough to satisfy my maker if there's one keeping score.DaveScot
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
It is important to make the distinction between something you believe and something you know to be scientifically proven. Ken Miller might believe that abiogenesis requires God, he might even believe that evolution requires God. That does not make him a hypocrite, because he accepts that there is not enough scientific evidence to make the conclusion that intelligence is nessecary. Maybe he secretly hopes that ID will be proved right eventually I dont know, but the point is that right now he doesnt think that the evidence supports design, so he argues against it. "“it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention.” This fear that taking a position might endanger one’s faith, or create a faith crisis, causes some to move as far into the devil’s territory as they can get. They believe that they can find a safe place there, figuring its easier to back out than it is to be forced in deeper than you voluntarily go." It seems to me that is just the reason he will not accept God of the gaps arguments, and that he does not need Gods actions to be proved to him scientifically to believe. "You have to understand that Ken Miller is a phony. He claims to be religious but is openly dishonest when it comes to presenting what he must know about one of the biggest controversies of the day. If he were an honest man, and I believe to be religious you have to be an honest person, he would publicly act differently. To understand Ken Miller you have to understand he sells hundreds of thousands of text books each year, has a prestigious job at Brown and has many speaking engagements and receives a substantial financial reward from each. If he were to be honest about ID or Darwinism he would be ostracized in a nano-second and all his career and royalties would disappear. We know the game. So Ken Miller has made some choices." Whether or not he is openly dishonest is your opinion, I have spoken to many evangelical Christians who give the same reason you do as to why creationists are dishonest. These kind of accusations are unprovable, unless you have a quote from Miller confirming it. I imagine that some creationsists and ID advocates make just as much money as Miller from speaking engagements and books, but I would not argue that they are just in it for the money, as it adds nothing to the debate. Surely people like Miller, if genuine, are a good counter to the claims that ID is just about religion.Chris Hyland
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
You have to understand that Ken Miller is a phony. He claims to be religious but is openly dishonest when it comes to presenting what he must know about one of the biggest controversies of the day. If he were an honest man, and I believe to be religious you have to be an honest person, he would publicly act differently. To understand Ken Miller you have to understand he sells hundreds of thousands of text books each year, has a prestigious job at Brown and has many speaking engagements and receives a substantial financial reward from each. If he were to be honest about ID or Darwinism he would be ostracized in a nano-second and all his career and royalties would disappear. We know the game. So Ken Miller has made some choices.jerry
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Dave, you do not have to wait to meet up with him to complain. Ask any Jewish Rabbi, or well informed Christian. We complain all the time! Complain enough and he gives you opportunties to solve the very problems you're upset about :) He must think you're very exceptional or you would not be here now defending Dembski and crew. As a small personal testimony, it took 42 years to accept fully a personal God and Christ as his son. Prior to that I was angry, disbelieving and critical of all Christians. But I digress.... You can talk to him now, argue with him, blame him for the worlds problems. He'll listen. This is what God, Moses, David in Psalms, the Prophets, Christ and his apostles all state with clarity. Abraham argued, Jacob wrestled with an angel(messenger) of the Lord, and Job whined, complained and questioned God's ability to do anything good at all. God is not responsible for man's actions other than freeing us to do make our own decisions. We ourselves are, our leaders, our nations. We cause the problems of the world. We allow them. We ignore them. Both the good and the evil, the majority and minority are all responsible at one time or another. Some people drop all they're doing, enter into service to help other people and nations. They feed millions, give healthcare, and make a real difference. I cannot say this. I've only just begun this journey a little over 3 years ago. We know driving a car has certain potential danger when our children grow up. When some children drive to fast or drink and cause a wreck that is clearly their fault, do we blame God or ourselves for letting them to drive? Or do we hold the children accountable if we gave instructions for them to drive carefully? This is a simple example. I realize you can rebut with others. In many ways, we are in control. In some ways we are not - and thats the hard part. But if there is true acceptance and belief in Christ, then the Father who is in Him, then the cruelty, oppression, pain, suffering and death in this world are temporary and this world pales in comparison to the world to come. His existence as recorded in Old/New Testaments and his appearances set forth guided Israel. So far, archeology has proven both Old and New Testaments accurate, much more so than fossil collecting of evolution btw. Although I realize its similar in that it cannot provide actual evidence of God's existence. The outline of God's appearance to the world however is he would not appear again until Israel is gathered together again from all nations of the world and other specific steps occur. Israel has only the last few years located the two tribes of Joseph and are busy in preparations to bring those willing home. He dispersed 10 tribes of Israel first for their failure to honor him, then Yahudah, Benjamin and the Levitical Priestly family after their refusal to follow him and from a Christian perspective(not accepted by majority of our Jewish elder brothers), the very rejection of Christ who said, "not one stone shall be left unturned when the temple will be destroyed". Christ wept because he new what would happen. I hope this does not seem like preaching, but trying to give some specifics from my understanding of God's word and history thru his people and nation he chose for the world to see as evidence for his being. You may already have read fully the Bible and know this information and just not accept it as accurate. But hey, I'm praying for you to experience what I did. To me it was overwhelming and caused me to search, to question everything I knew regarding evolution, etc., and actually begin learning again with renewed vigor and spirit of inquiry I'd lost for some time. As a result of all my complaining, God put something right in my lap and said - go fix it! You're mad these people are suffering without cause, here, here's your opportunity to show me what you're made of. Here's people who come to you and ask for help, in fact, against all odds, here they are - now - what will You do. Accccck! ;-) Rise up, he says, and feed my sheep for the harvest is great and the servants few. He's a conquering God, fearless as David well knew when one finally accepts him truly. That's been my experience... so far.... Challenge Him!Michaels7
June 23, 2006
June
06
Jun
23
23
2006
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT

Did God only get involved 4 bill years ago and then sleep until Adam? Is God again asleep until the return? Not in my experience.

God has continuously intervened in human history.

I know a God who meddles in my life, and in the lives of others that I know, and hear about. I do not attribute only the "unknowns" of our lives to a "God of the Gaps". God is involved in many knowns too.

People who know God, know He is alive and active today in our real every day lives. I know people who say they are helped by God to do their science better!

Isaiah gives the picture of the potter. The potter creates over time. How long? Who knows? The details of the potter's methods are only partly recognised from the finished pot.

ID finds the marks of the potter on the pot. A pot is different from a stone hollowed out by an erosive process.

By seeking to be respectable about when and where God is allowed to have acted in life's history, we are in danger of being shown up to be trying to tame Aslan.

If God is alive and intervenes in the world today He has some explaining to do when I meet up with Him as to why there's so much pain and suffering in the world. -ds

DS: Theologians have taken up the task of explaining evil in the world despite God's continued intervention, so you don't need to wait until you have a face to face encounter with your Maker . I've taken up this task myself: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf. --WmAD

idnet.com.au
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
"If ID is potentially valid at the origin of life, what is to preclude its validity for the subsequent history of life?" None I should say... This is one of the reasons I try & add the Origins of Life when I debate TOE.. Need to introduce myself. First time on UD & I am impressed. Been following the posts for a few days now... I have begun to read up on ID only off late as I researched evidence against TOE. I was led to beleive that scientist are contantly trying to falsify existing theories for obvious reasons & so i expected to find lots of work being done to falsify TOE. But alas my modest search untill now gives the opposite picture for TOE... What I have dicovered is reams & reams of supposed anomalies which seemingly contradict TOE & its conclusions/inferences but very less mainstream scientific studies in such areas. Infact its the opposite which is true, there are reams & reams of speculative psedo-scientific explanation( no experiments) that try to explain away the TOE anomalies & then we get told there is "overwhelming evidence" in favour on TOE & no(zilch, dada) evidence against it. Silly of me to trust that scientists always follow the data irrespective of where it leads to. Can't blame them entirely cause some of these areas have been labelled unfairly fringe science, namely parapsycology, forbidden archaelogy etc etc. I can understand ignoring a field to protect one's career but to peddle falsehoods, subvert truth etc in the name of debunking is a strict no no in my book. The materialistic scientists need to realise that Truth always wins.. it always just a matter of time. Truth doesn't contradict at any time/place, while lies/falsehoods always will contradict & hence will be eventually exposed. Science as I understand should be the pursuit of Truth using the Scientific method. "Truth Always Wins" translates into "Satya Meva Jayate" ( language Sanskrit/Hindi) and is one of Mahatma Ghandhi's famous quotes. As long as any scientific activity pursues Truth, its on solid grounds & no amount of hurdles can stop it. Whatever I have learnt untill now about ID, its primary exponents & its many votaries reinforces this notion of "Pursuit of Truth" & hence have no doubts on its eventual triumph over TOE.SatyaMevaJayate
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
I really believe that Miller and Collins have two motivations for holding their "non-ID" theistic evolution position. One motivation is the "jam tart" motivation -- they may be afraid of being rejected by the scientific establishment. I think this is Miller's primary motivation for being so vehamently anit-ID. However, Collins expressed what is probably the deeper motivation when he said, "it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention." This fear that taking a position might endanger one's faith, or create a faith crisis, causes some to move as far into the devil's territory as they can get. They believe that they can find a safe place there, figuring its easier to back out than it is to be forced in deeper than you voluntarily go. As one who has slowly moved from YEC to being prepared to weather the possibility that theistic evolution is correct, I can only say that faiht is pretty good at adapting. I do not have a similar fear. I must say, however, that the statements by these two men is a glimmer of ID light in the darkness of their position. You are alive until you are fully dead, and God did it until God had absolutely nothing to do with it.bFast
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Heck, since Darwin is so venerated, perhaps we just quote him regarding the origin of life and the bio faculty would be compelled to accept it. Chapter 14:
the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created. Charles Darwin
scordova
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson

Correct. They operate under the assumption they can't let a divine foot in the door. They're afraid if they give an inch the other side will take a mile. I don't think this is true. Just because I'm willing to admit a divine or some other intelligent foot in the door at the time life first appeared on this planet doesn't mean I'm willing to admit that foot ever appeared again. I need compelling evidence for each appearance of that foot and following Occam's Razor I will shave the number of intercessions to the bare minimum. There are only two possible intervention points I'm willing to entertain right now and that is at the beginning of the universe and at the beginning of the earth's history. -ds bevets
June 22, 2006
June
06
Jun
22
22
2006
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply