Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

"I’m inclined to think that theistic Darwinists of the Ken Miller variety have been bullied into submission by atheist and anti-theist materialists so much that their belief in Darwinism has become fused to their belief in theism."

My family is probably one of the most God centered families I know. Our family reunions seem to be theological conventions. One Uncle is a preacher, the wife a sunday school teacher. Another Aunt is a Sunday school teacher. My parents were Sunday school teachers at my church (my father was also a biology teacher). Everyone is deeply involved in a church, (Church of Christ, Baptist, Methodist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, No catholics LOL etc) and this characterization above makes no sense to me. All but two (out of 30+?) of them accept evolution, and the beliefs of atheists make no blip on anyone's radar. No one has been bullied that I know of. I'm only saying this so that you may understand my perspective.

I just think statements like this are very divisive among Christians, and I personaly think the topic of evolution can become an in-house debate. Instead of trying to paint "theistic evolutionists" as deluded Christians, or worse "non-Christians" I think a kind intelligent discussion can take place. I know atheists accept evolution, but so do people from every religion out there. Most Buddhists accept evolution, but Christians don't feel that by accepting evolution you also have to accept the Buddhist philosophy. The same should go for atheists, jews, wiccans or any other religion that applies a philisophical coating to science. I simply don't see how atheists have come to own the theory of evolution (in the eyes of some people, including atheists! heh)

Fross
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
"He must, if he is a Catholic, believe that God intervened with Man." not necessarily. I know some TE who believe RM&NS and that man eventually showed up. The difference according to TE is that God eventually breathed a spirit into two of them.ajl
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Tina, Ken Miller claims to be a Catholic. The Catholic Church believes in the constant meddling of God in our lives. That is what prayer is about. They believe the laws of nature are violated all the time by God. That is what miracles are about. So if Ken Miller is a Catholic then he will have to ask why he defends that God intervenes with prayer and miracles but could not change the odd nucleotide here and there. Part of what may be at the basis for his opinion is something I said on another post. Namely, to many it seems to be beneath the all powerful God of the Jewish and Christian theology to be the actual tinkerer of DNA in life forms. When you think about it, DNA and all its implication is a marvelous accomplishment but it pales next to the magnificence of the universe and the intelligence and power that created it. The Catholic Church's position is very unclear on Intelligent Design in biology. They have said it alright to accept Darwinian evolution but this is not an endorsement of it as truth. Their position is that science and religion should never be in conflict. I am sure they do not want to get caught in another Galileo trap by pronouncing on something as charged as this issue is right now. There has been several stories of Pope Benedict talking about the obvious design in the world and Cardinal Schoenborn, his main assistant on matters of theology, also talking about obvious design and in particular Intelligent Design but they will neither get involved with the specifics of Intelligent Design nor specifying the limits of Darwin. They are walking a fence at the moment saying that if the evidence supports Darwin then that is OK but if it doesn't then that is OK too. I haven't read Ken Miller's book so I do not know how he gets around the issue of espousing a God who constantly meddles in many areas of this world but never in the area of creating life forms. He must, if he is a Catholic, believe that God intervened with Man. It is part of the basic belief of Catholicism. All you have to do is look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to understand this. Maybe someone else who has read his book can comment on Miller's position on these other issues. Two other Catholics who obviously endorse Intelligent Design are Michael Behe and Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute. But neither may agree with every other member of The Center for Science and Culture about different aspects of Intelligent Design.jerry
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
I'm inclined to think that theistic Darwinists of the Ken Miller variety have been bullied into submission by atheist and anti-theist materialists so much that their belief in Darwinism has become fused to their belief in theism. The kind of impassioned zeal with which many Darwinists defend their theory comes only from people who are defending an ideology which goes deeper than just science. The fact that professing religious theists can be found among their ranks validates my point.crandaddy
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT

Ken Miller's god is Darwins god, but He is not the God of Abraham nor the God of this Catholic who doesn't question God's ability to use evolution to His own ends.

However, having read Ken Miller, I have come to the conclusion that, Mendel aside, had Professor Miller been a contemporary of Lemaitre he would have discarded that Catholic Monk's cosmology as fundamentalist driven drivel.

John
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
I just completed a lengthy thread discussion with a proponent of ken miller's type of theistic evolutionary philosophy because I find it a particularly frustrating position. Nevertheless, I was able to come to a greater appreciation of the viewpoint of people who think this way, and it seems that the basic thrust of their view is that the physical laws of the universe were created by God with the intent to produce life, and that the natural interactions of these physical laws are adequate to explain the development of life. Darwinian evolutionary theory describes this process as "random mutations plus natural selection". The theistic evolutionists basically hold that what appears 'random' to science could actually be a far more complex, multi-variable process with intent behind it, but that intent would never be recognizable through material scientific analysis. They accept the use of the term 'random' but personally assign it a far less powerful meaning that the people like Dawkins, who take the implications of randomness seriously. I started the thread by basically saying that whenever I have discussions with theistic evolutionists, they always end by waffling on this particular issue of how truly UNGUIDED the process really is. In essence, they feel that the process is guided in the sense of being pre-planned through the laws of creation, but unguided in the sense of purposeful and specific 'tinkering' with particular mutational changes. 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 God's interventions in material life, and yet maintained with absolute steadfastness that God (or the intelligent designer of one's chosing) could NEVER be detected through the work of material creation in a rigorous way. It felt like an absolute wall separating what might be termed the intellectual work of science and the faith-based activity of the soul. I get the sense that people who believe in this fashion sincerely believe that they are protecting both science and religion from the impurities of mixture.tinabrewer
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Did anyone click on the picture of Ken "I'm-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution" Miller? Very interesting - look closely at the slide in the background. It is an AiG book cover by Ken Hamm. Now, not to offend any YEC, but look at what Miller is doing - using an argument against YEC - his typical approach (caught red handed in this picture). ID is not YEC in a cheap tuxedo - but rather Ken "I'm-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution" Miller is trying to fit a cheap tuxedo onto ID. Ken "I'm-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution" Miller knows better than this, but he keeps running the same tired arguments up the flagpole. But, I can't really argue with him, considering he is "a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution", I guess I should believe it too.ajl
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
OK Ken, Are you saying the ACLU would be OK with it if biology teachers read the following to their students: "As for what evolution really means, I can't think of anyone who summed it up better than Charles Darwin," said Miller. (Miller closed with a quote from the conclusion of Darwin's Origin of Species:)
"There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved."
(bold added)Joseph
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Hey Ken- you and your ilk are the problem. Ken do you realize there isn't any difference between your "God" and no "God" at all? And finally Ken, thanks for the closing quote by Darwin exposing the theory of evolution as just another Creationist theory. After all if life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there would be no need to posit its subsequent diversity arose via those type of processes. Or are you just too stupid to realize what you just admitted to?Joseph
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
THey are labeled nutcases. That's the PR gimmick of ad hominem. It works. Label the other side as "Them" and our side as "Us" and you get what you see in the article above. If science is so open, let's see the journals start accepting the work done by the ID sciences. It's part of the ploy, pretend that science is "based solely on merit" then define a system where only your interpretation has merit. The DI lists dozens of scientific papers. Let's see one in "Nature".?Doug
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Anti-ID folks like Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest can make transparently outrageous claims about impending doom, the collapse of science, and conspiracies to establish a theocracy, and make these claims with complete impunity. Why is this? If those on the other side made analogous claims they would rightly be labeled nutcases.GilDodgen
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Truth according to Miller: "evolution defines a relationship between creator and created based on a moral independence and free will." What a load of Dodo doo-doo. Since when can evolution define a relationship with a creator it (Darwinism) specifically denies the existence of? Remember, evolution is supposedly an "unplanned, purposeless process" and was invented in the first place to eliminate the need for a creator (and subsequently make atheists feel intellectually satisfied). What Miller's religion really does is lock potential scientific discovery behind an impenetrable barrier of dogmatic Darwinism. Why would any student of science seeking to make fundamental discoveries waste his/her time researching questions that the establishment claims to have already answered - and all that is left to do is fill in the unimportant details? The answer is that they wouldn’t – they’d find something more interesting to do. Dr. Miller should open his eyes. See the truth. Talk the truth. But continuing to deny the obvious - or even worse continuing to force a false doctrine on our children while prohibiting them from free skepticism - will indeed lead to our inevitable demise. Miller is right about the end result, but seems blind to the cause.dougmoran
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
When science is presented as unquestionable dogma of course people are going to be suspicious of it. The fault isn't in the people who are suspicious and the fault isn't in the science. The fault is in the people who want to teach it as as dogma.DaveScot
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT

i love the doom and gloomers.

If Intelligent Design is taught, we'll become a darkage thirdworld country!
If evolution is taught, our kids will all shoot each other at school and get pregnant early!

I doubt either case will cause such extreme outcomes.

Fross
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Miller is taking the alarmist approach. Nice. Ken, it is bad science that we hope the next generation will be suspicious of.Scott
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT

I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns. I don't understand why he needs to be so vehement in his public opposition to ID. ID is a new science and as such, it will gain its credibility with published scientific work. Why is that scary? Isn't that how all the rest of science works?

Doug
March 1, 2006
March
03
Mar
1
01
2006
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply