Ken Miller and Chicken Little — The Sky Continues to Fall!

_{William Dembski

March 1, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Perhaps Miller & Co. need to cut to the chase and take out a contract on key ID players. As I recall from the three years I lived in Rhode Island (I went to a prep school there), Providence, the city in which Brown University (Miller’s employer) is located, has an effective mob presence.

“Why is this a big deal?” asked Miller. The answer, according to Miller, is the future of science in America. We are raising a generation of people who are going to be suspicious of science, and that has huge implications for scientific fields. Other countries will be moving ahead in science, leaving the United States behind. “What is at stake is, literally, everything,” said Miller.

MORE

Comments

Thanks for the kind words Scott, Lutepisc and Tina. Tina, no problem about your comments. Sometimes I get frustrated when people can't read minds and so don't get exactly what I mean. ;)
But I also believe what ID says on its face, very simply, that the complexity of life bespeaks design.
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree. I think that the complexity of life (and many other things in the universe) bespeaks a well-designed universe. I think that the natural processes God created and sustains truly are marvels -- especially how some of them appear to emerge from each other during those first moments after the Big Bang. ID seems to be about looking for elements that deviate from the way the universe is designed to work, while TE sees the design of the universe itself as a fulfillment of Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19:1-4a. To me, the amazing "life" cycle of stars is testament to God's creativity and intellect even though no steps break any natural laws. Actually, I think it's more elegant because it doesn't break any laws. The process of evolution, including mutation and natural selection, also seems to point to a far more transcendent designer than would be required to occasionally intervene in these processes. A highly intelligent alien or even future humans may be able to genetically manipulate cells and inject new molecular machines into them, but it truly takes God to make a universe endowed with processes that facilitate the adaptation and diversification of life. Of course, a God who could make such a universe could also intervene in it whenever he chose to, but the reverse doesn't necessarily hold: intelligent aliens may be able to intervene in nature, but they couldn't make nature. As such, ID seems to be a poor method for establishing God's design (and indeed, many ID advocates insist that its goals are far more modest).
Incidentally, what evidence made you come to be more comfortable with the idea that random mutation and natural selection were probable instead of wildly improbable?
As I read more about evolution, I realized that my conception about it hadn't been that accurate. I had thought that novel features came about in big leaps, similar to additions to computer programs, without fully understanding the incremental nature of the process or the amount of time involved. And, I read about some examples of observed evolution where fairly complex new structures evolved in the span of a human lifetime. Nothing as complex as a flagellum, but still more than a mutation or two could produce. As for irreducibly complex structures, once I factored in the possibility of scaffolding (that something could evolve piecemeal, and then some pieces could be removed, leaving a structure that appears to be irreducible), it didn't seem that insurmountable a hurdle for evolution.Mercury_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Mercury, thanks for the additions. I tried to present your view as I had come to understand it and i apologize if I misrepresented you. I have asked the other participants on this thread to clarify for me their own perceptions of the ID movement's stance on design (does God/designer tinker occasionally or is the whole thing designed) I was genuinely surprised to learn that many IDproponents advocate the idea that only in particular instances did God intervene to add design to the naturally unfolding process. I am glad that this has been clarified for me, because it makes me realize what a big tent ID is indeed, since I certainly do NOT hold this view. I believe in a way which is probably more analogous to your view, of the whole creation as a lawful unfoldment of God's Will. But I also believe what ID says on its face, very simply, that the complexity of life bespeaks design. period. I believe the designer to be the Almighty and his helpers. Incidentally, what evidence made you come to be more comfortable with the idea that random mutation and natural selection were probable instead of wildly improbable?tinabrewer_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

I agree with Scott! Thank you for your open and forthcoming presentation of your quest, Mercury. I am a fellow traveler; let us see where the road leads! The ultimate end, I believe, will be determined by The One whose creative finger originated the whole process to begin with.Lutepisc_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Your honest and thoughtful presentation of your position is both refreshing and appreciated, Mercury. Thanks.Scott_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Mercury said: "God endowed his creation with what it needs to bring forth what he commanded it to bring forth, and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why nature are so amazing and powerful. Now, rather than every scientific discovery shrinking my view of what is left for God, I see every discovery as revealing more grandeur and majesty in the creation God made." Yes! And that's why I find intelligent design so inadequate. I cannot imagine God bent over a blueprint designing flagella. He works on such a grand scale, so far beyond our comprehension. Evolution is His perfect tool. Mercury also said "I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to bet my belief in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence on the flagellum needing an explanation that defies nature, since I accept that God is the author of nature as well." Yes! Have you all read the Book of Job?George_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Hi jacktone, I examined YEC pretty closely, and it took quite a bit for me to let go of it. Ice cores were one of the main things that caused me to have doubts: not only do they record layers going back tens of thousands of years (and now hundreds of thousands of years), but the layers contain ash and other material that can be independently dated. Most of the YEC arguments I read were based on different areas that get more snowfall than where the icecores come from, and they also ignored the corroboration from other dating methods that shows the layers to be seasonal. The "God created it fully-formed" argument didn't wash, since there's no reason for God to create an appearance of history, such as ash and other material in various layers. One of the last pieces that changed my mind is "polystrate" fossils. I had thought that was a good piece of YEC evidence, but when I saw the other side, I realized that not only were the YECs wrong, but my sources had deceived me on that issue by withholding important information. I had never put two and two together to see that floods, volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters still occur regardless of whether there was a global flood. And further, multiple floods or eruptions could explain the fossilized forests buried in successive layers, often with their roots intact. The global flood explanation could only plausibly explain the first layer. What really got me was that the YEC sources I had been using were about 70 years out of date in what they said was the standard geological explanation. It wasn't just that the standard explanation was better, but that the YEC sources were hiding it. Anyway, I switched to gap theory shortly after coming across that issue. I was pretty sure I was moving to a position that only seemed like a good compromise while actually it would be problematic both scientifically and scripturally if I looked closer. For a while, I just lived with the tension and ignored the issue. Finally, it bugged me that there was an area of Scripture I was afraid to read, and so I studied the early chapters of Genesis in depth. That led me to what I later found out is called the framework hypothesis, and since that view allows one to accept the rest of the findings of science, over the next year or so I looked at evolution in a new light. Without my need for it to be wrong, it no longer seemed that implausible. Though I still thought it was improbable, I had to admit that long odds wouldn't be a problem for God if he was the architect of it. So, I tentatively accepted it, and as I read more, I came to accept it further, and even think that the odds really aren't quite as astronomical as I thought. It seems to me now that God endowed his creation with what it needs to bring forth what he commanded it to bring forth, and that's why nature are so amazing and powerful. Now, rather than every scientific discovery shrinking my view of what is left for God, I see every discovery as revealing more grandeur and majesty in the creation God made. So there you go. That's my creation journey so far.Mercury_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

I think YEC was what I had in mind. How closely have you examined your "default" position?jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Hi jacktone, What do you mean by creationist? I do consider myself a creationist in the general sense, since I believe God created all that exists that is not God. If you mean young-earth creation, that was my default position since that's how I was raised, but I didn't find that position to account for the evidence once I looked at the issue in detail.Mercury_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Oops, comment above for Barrett1 is meant for Mercury.jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Barrett1, have you considered the creationists position?jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Tina, this is the million dollar question for me as well. And it is a troubling one. It seems to me that most of the learned, credentialed scientists that support at least the consideration of ID come down on the side of supernatural intervention SOME of the time. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. That is, Darwin's theory holds up pretty well in explaining the fossil record, similarities in form, etc. But when it comes to the bacterial flagellum, Darwin's theory falls apart. Now, according the Phillip Johnson, science only tells us what is, not the way it ought to be. So, conjecture about why God would do his designing only some of the time, is really off limits to science. For me, this is immensely unsatisfying, but those are the ground rules I guess. It is awfully strange, isn't it?Barrett1_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

I'm the TE from another thread ("If you can't beat 'em...") that Tina has commented about. Tina, I'm glad that our discussion was somewhat helpful in understanding where people like me are coming from. I do want to try to clear up a few continuing areas of confusion.
They accept the use of the term Ã¢â‚¬ËœrandomÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ but personally assign it a far less powerful meaning that the people like Dawkins, who take the implications of randomness seriously.
As we discovered in the other thread, my view of the randomness of mutations is pretty much the same as your view of the randomness of coin tosses. They appear random to us, but that doesn't mean God couldn't intervene in any outcome, or use any outcome to accomplish his purposes. Even though you accept this about coin tosses, you still call them random, just as I still call mutations random.
What intrigued me by my discussion was to learn the extent to which the gentleman in question, who was very forthcoming with careful explanations, had an apparently limitless ability to believe the Bible stories of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interventions in material life, and yet maintained with absolute steadfastness that God (or the intelligent designer of oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s chosing) could NEVER be detected through the work of material creation in a rigorous way.
First, I was directly referring to God. (Since TE is an unabashedly theological position, there's no need for me to avoid using the word "God".) I didn't say God could never be detected. What I said (twice) was, "God does work in nature, and it's not necessary for him to break the rules he set in place for him to do so. God can work within nature or above nature. His actions can be detectable or not. No limits." My disagreement with ID is with the particular place where the movement typically looks for God to intervene in a detectable way. They don't focus on the ultimate ex nihilo creation of the natural realm, or on purported miracles, but rather on things like bacterial flagella. I don't want to bet my belief in God's existence on the flagellum needing an explanation that defies nature, since I accept that God is the author of nature as well. As for the universe as a whole, I do find value in the philosophical fine-tuning argument. Also, a clarification from another thread where you discussed our conversation. I am not a "believer in Darwinism", since most ID advocates including you define Darwinism as more of a world-view than the scientific theory of biological evolution. I do not accept materialism, nor do I believe that all truth is discoverable through science. I accept consensus science without necessarily accepting the philosophical opinions of various scientists. My belief is in Jesus.Mercury_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Well Tina, folks are always saying that ID is a big tent. I personally come down where you are - all the machines are designed, even the simple ones. If I understand Behe's position on this, it is more like your TE's perception of ID.jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

I wanted to clarify a thought that has bothered me since I finished my discussion with the TE the other day. it was his firm belief that ID is basically saying that only certain individual instances in the unfolding of life are obviously the result of an intelligent agent. This left him with the impression that IDist believe that MOST or MUCH of life could have come about through RM+NS, but that in THESE PARTICULAR INSTANCES (the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, etc.), design was necessary. What this led to was, for him, an engineer type God, who doesn't really need to intervene but does so for fun now and again. I was surprised to hear that someone could have this impression of the ID position, because I have never held such a view. It was my belief that the reason IDist point out individual instances of particularly complex systems is because they are clearly above the probability threshold for events which came about by chance and circumstance, whereas other biological systems and functions, while equally designed, do not necessarily meet this necessary criteria for making a design inference. in other words, ID is like if you walked into a room full of strange looking machines, and you found a few extremely complex ones, which exhibited irreducible complexity, etc. and you also found a few which were far simpler. You would use the more complex ones as 'proof' that these things were clearly the result of intelligent agency, but you would not at the same time say 'these other, simpler ones are not designed'. Could anyone help me out here? Am I misunderstanding the ID position on this?tinabrewer_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Gandalf. That's what I was trying to say. Fewer words is better.jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

ds: "Much of this comment was deleted. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really care to waste my time linking to well known surveys." Well, I'm happy to be corrected. I wasn't aware of the survey. I'm still surprised at the results, though. I'm a Catholic and an "evolutionist", and in my opinion tinabrewer's assessment is correct. Most Catholics I know have no difficulty in reconciling their faith and evolution. I can only speak from personal experience, but I consider religion and science to be completely different ways of knowing the world, as different as apples and screwdrivers. One relies on faith, and the other on empirical observation. I live in Ireland, where the vast majority are Catholic. (But there are more atheists than leprechauns here, sorry Fross.) There is very little or no controversy about evolution here. Most secondary (high) schools are run by religious orders, and evolution is taught in biology classes in accordance with national standards. So I think the viewpoint of keeping faith and science separate and accomodating both without conflict is pretty common among Catholics. [NOTE TO MODERATOR: not sure what I said that violated the rules here. I've rewritten what I said without references to Biblical literalness & Adam & Eve. Maybe that was it? Care to enlighten me?]George_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Sorry, can't buy that assertion. Science of any sort is built upon logical presuppositions, and that is the realm of philosophy ... which is informed by science, but not necessarily subordinate to it.Gandalf_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Without direct knowledge of God and miracles, science does have an apparent monopoly on truth.jaredl_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Thank you to tinabrewer. I have had this same frustration recently. Many of my Catholic friends whom I love and respect share the view she described, and the journal First Things has given it much play. See "The Miracle of Evolution" by Stephen Barr in hte Feb. 06 issue. Last week at our ROFTERS meeting Edward Oakes joined us and expressed this view as well. I keep thinking, "What am I missing? I simply cannot reconcile their position with the God of the Bible, but they seem to be able to do so with alacrity." Now I know I am not alone in my mystification.BarryA_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

I find DS's assertion that 70% of the National Academy are atheists very hard to believe.

Much of this comment was deleted. I don't really care to waste my time linking to well known surveys. Consider yourself warned and be careful how you reply to this if you want to continue participating here. -ds
George_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

i think that it is too easy for folks to make the mistake of thinking that "Science" has some sort of corner on the truth market. consequently, we find ourselves expecting science to answer questions that it can't. seems like the wrong way to look at science. discovering Truth should include the "truths" that science can reveal to us, but "Science" doesn't belong on such a lofty pedestal that it is the exact image of "Truth". Ken and the TE's appear to have lost the ability to look at things from a variety of perspectives.jacktone_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

just read this today. great article by jonathan witt that is very relevant to this thread. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=717jacktone_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Fross, The theistic Darwinists to whom I refer in comment 13 are not simply theistic evolutionists or even ordinary theistic Darwinists per se. I refer to theists who put great amounts of effort into defending the position that design in nature has not and cannot be detected scientifically. Because I don't see how such a position is theologically necessary (for Christianity, at least) and because I perceive fundamental errors in their arguments, I do think these people are misguided. "Deluded" is too strong a word, and I certainly dare not go so far as to call these people "non-Christians". As far as I know, Miller is a very devout believer in his Catholic faith; I have no right to insinuate otherwise.crandaddy_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

LoL! The Nicene Creed might not mention Adam & Eve but it does mention Jesus and salvation. Salvation from what, if there were no original sin? The Nicene Creed would never have existed had it not been for the Torah and then the New Testament. It is a simple "prayer" affirming one's faith. That's it. A working definition? What a joke... As someone who was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic schools and learned about Christianity inside and out. I can confirm what Zindler states is absolutely correct.Joseph_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Frank who?

Atheist are perhaps the smallest least politically organized group in the world. I come across Leprechans more than I do atheists (unless I go online). Why do they get to define what is and isn't Christian. IT seems to me that this Frank guy has a very narrow definition of Christianity and is using a strawman argument.

I think atheists and Christians who go around saying that Genesis must be literal or there is no God are creating a polarized environment that's probably not good for spiritual growth. IMO
Depends on where you look. Over 70% of the National Academy of Sciences are positive atheists. -ds Fross_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Zindler's statement relies on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. For many/most Christians Zindler is full of hot air.ftrp11_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

What Zindler doesn't realize is that there are many Christians who hold to a "Pre-Ademic" world where intelligently guided biological "evolution" occured which would ultimately lead to God's sinless Adam.

I do agree with Zindler that if we have no Adam, we have no need for a literal savior because there was never a falling out of harmony with the creator, and thus no need for redemption.
Scott_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Atheist Frank Zindler said, Wait, do Atheists get to decide who is and isn't a Christian now? I think we should let Christians define Christianity. A lot of Christians use the Nicene Creed as a working definition, and the that doesn't mention Adam and Eve at all. It's certainly possible to believe in the Nicene Creed while also believing that the story of Adam and Eve is a parable, or that it happened in a spiritual realm that's not accessible from the physical universe. Atheist Frank Zindler can say that people like that aren't "real Christians", but why should anyone believe him?chaosengineer_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Perhaps Ken the "Catholic" can explain the following: Atheist Frank Zindler said,
Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
Joseph_{March 2, 2006
March
03
Mar
2
02
2006
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I agree with you in your assessment of the TE viewpoint. I didn't mean to imply from my post that I now sympathize in any way with this outlook;only that I have a greater appreciation for the sincerity with which the view is held, which basically shocked me. I am accustomed to hearing serious pronouncements by Eugenie Scott types which imply that any conflict between science and religion is just so much fluff and fantasy. Everyone knows that these pronouncements are purely political, as anyone who has ever worked in academic biology can attest. The other part of the discussion I had with the TE poster involved the implications of Darwinian theory. I pointed out the many ways in which the 'life by accident' core of darwinism radiates out into the other fields of study, such as evolutionary psychology, etc. This person seemed not only not interested in these obvious effects, but felt that any such discussion was tantamount to a rejection of science, and an irrational 'blaming science for all of the evils of the world'. Incidentally, like I wrote before, this individual was very candid about his personal belief that God manipulates events in history to his ends all the time. But he felt that the events of biology and the evolution of life were all so much a part of a kind of pre-determined lawful unfolding that detecting individual instances of 'design' was impossible because of the very seamlessness of the magnitude of God's creation. There may be some merit to this view fundamentally, except that to the TEs, the lifeless physical laws interacting as they do seem to be enough to bring about complex life, where an ID position could be that the physical laws, in conjunction with some source or form of INFORMation would be necessary. I don't know.tinabrewer_{March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply