Behe Outs Miller as ID Proponent

_{Barry Arrington

October 30, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

See here: www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/…

Comments

I love the way Mike Behe uses Koonin's work to show the superficiality of Miller's understanding of how hard or easy it is to get life started. Fine tuning is all very well. Having RNA is all very fine. But there is a lot of intelligence needed to get from a scrabble set to a completed game.idnet.com.au_{October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

SOMEWHAT OFF TOPIC: Could someone start a thread on how Behe's EoE could inform the development of drugs that fight antibiotic resistant bacteria? Today's WSJ, for example, describes the problem of MRSA and other superbugs that defy existing antibiotics. Given the expense of the pharmaceutical development process, an ID-oriented research program ought to reduce the cost of development by only focusing on drugs that would require resistant bacteria to evolve beyond the EoE (which Behe shows is not possible). http://drugwonks.com/dgw_{October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Miller thinks he owns the theory of evolution (and for that matter, the whole natural science department) since he wrote so many textbooks on the subject. I don't blame him though, or any Darwinist for that matter, when confronted with all the evidence to the contrary (ie: from ID), you have no choice but to be in denial, else your subject to having "I was wrong" or "all that time I wasted" on your conscience for the rest of your life.godslanguage_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Miller criticizes Behe's scientific arguments because of Miller's theological objections to features he considers evil in creation. What Miller fails to realize is that the indirect design he proposes of cosmological fine tuning followed by Darwinian evolution would result in a vastly greater problem of evil - namely far more mutations and consequent pain and suffering. The incredible complexity currently being discovered reveals an incredible degree of finely matched components where a few mutations result in dramatic reductions in performance and some pain and suffering with cancer and numerous other genetic diseases. In Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome,(2006 Elim Publications. Elim, NY) John C. Sanford reviews the dominance of detrimental mutations over favorable mutations. This results in an accumulation of mutations in the genome. Miller's random Darwinian evolution model would result in far more mutations than Behe's model. That would cause vastly greater sickness and suffering than Behe's. Miller's argument drowns in the vary problem of which he accuses Behe. Miller's problem is indeed theological, not scientific - and of his own making.DLH_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

"Who says that mankind is the pinnacle of that system." Ahh... Jesus!Gods iPod_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

If God designed an evolutionary system for the development of life, the sheer magnitude of the time involved in the development to date is unequivocal evidence that the Designer takes the long view. Who says that mankind is the pinnacle of that system. For all we know life is still a work in progress. And who knows what purpose perceived evil might play in that developmental system? Good and Evil may both be paramount to the design of the ultimate life form.Webwanderer_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

I think the key point is that Miller hears what he wants to hear. Extending that concept, he believes what he wants to believe. That would explain the way he behaved during that "firing line" (Buckley) debate about a decade ago. As he began his presentation, he informed his audience about Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. Next, he brought out a mousetrap and disclosed that the mousetrap contained only 4 of the 5 necessary working parts. To dramatize his point, he set the trap and the released the catch so that the audience could hear a very loud "snap." "There, he said. It works. With only four working parts, it works" There was only one problem, of course. Miller had replaced the working part in question with a substitute part, different in structure, but similar in its capacity to perform the necessary funtion. Incredibly, he was completely oblivious to the fact that he had proven nothing and made a complete fool of himself. Obviously, there were still five working parts, meaning, of course, that the trap had not been "reduced." The fact that he could have missed to point so spectacularly proves how vulnerable he is to misunderstanding his adversaries points and how willing he is to attack strawmen. So strong was his bias, that he was willing to demonstrated his ignorance of the theory in the immediate presence of its originator. Naturally, Behe set him straight, but, in my judgment, he was much too charitable. To me, there is a time and a place for merciless ridicule. That would have been one of those times.StephenB_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

I agree with Behe that Miller is an IDer in denial. Behe sees that his view and Millers differ little, yet Miller's view and Denton's, as presented in "Nature's Destiny", is almost impossible to separate -- yet Denton sees himself as an IDer. Behe:
My own view ... is that, as a scientist, one is obliged to look at the evidence of nature dispassionately and nonjudgmentally.
Ah, a true scientist.bFast_{October 30, 2007
October
10
Oct
30
30
2007
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply