Through his writings, teaching and appearances in court, Dr. Miller has proved an eloquent and passionate defender of evolution and the scientific method.
Some Miller comments:
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. – Kenneth MillerThe new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design. – Kenneth Miller
There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory. – Kenneth Miller
Bradley Monton, atheist philosopher and author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), who thinks carefully about intelligent design, has some thoughts on Miller’s arguments:
Now, Miller thinks that naturalism is an essential part of science. He holds that if one drops the constraint of methodological naturalism, then science will stop, because one can imply appeal to God as an explanation of any scientific phenomenon. Miller writes:
A theistic science … will no longer be the science we have known. It will cease to explore, because it already knows the answers.
But as I’ve explained in Chapter 2, that is a bad line of reasoning. The reason it’s a bad line of reasoning is that, while theistic scientists could choose to stop investigating the world, and be satisfied with the answer “God did it,” they need not. What theistic scientists can do is investigate questions like: What structure did God choose to give the world?” If they try to answer this question, it follows that they won’t be satisfied with the answer “God did it”; they’ll want to investigate exactly what God did. (pp. 112-13) Moreover, theistic scientists, like everyone else, can continue to ask the question “Is there a naturalistic explanation of this phenomenon?” even if the theistic scientists think that the right explanation is supernatural. As long as theistic scientists are willing to investigate those questions, then science can go on in pretty much the standard way; allowing supernatural hypotheses won’t fundamentally change science. Miller is wrong to say that a theistic science would cease to explore, and thus, Miller’s claim that intelligent design is anti-science doesn’t hold up.
More later. Comments?