Ken Miller, the honest Darwinist
|June 27, 2007||Posted by scordova under Intelligent Design|
Ken Miller just published a review of Michael Behe’s book, Edge of Evolution. Here is Miller at his best:
but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error. Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is “beyond the edge of evolution”, he proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97Ã¢â‚¬â€œ101; 2006),
Falling over the edge
Miller falsely accuses Behe of not following the Science (2006) paper, yet it’s hard to imagine that Miller missed the widely available public response by Behe of that very study. How could Miller accuse Behe of not following the study, when Behe said:
The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet Ã¢â‚¬â€ and perhaps the lamest attempt thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s even possible Ã¢â‚¬â€ to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism
The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself.
In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t affect our evaluation of the science. But itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!
Despite Behe’s public and widely available commentary on this study, Miller falsely accuses Behe of not following it. Miller asserts boldly, “Apparently he [Behe] has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97Ã¢â‚¬â€œ101; 2006)“.
I get it, Miller didn’t realize Behe has indeed followed this study and that Behe has even publicly commented on the Discovery Institute’s website. Miller couldn’t possibly have been so dastardly as to actually know Behe published responses to the study, and then falsely accuse Behe of not following the study.
Miller couldn’t possibly be that dastardly. We can therefore attribute it to Miller’s ignorance and simply presume, even though Miller has been obsessed by ID activities, he missed Behe response on the DI website. That can only be the explanation since Miller, being the honest Darwinist he is, can’t possibly do such a dastardly thing. We must chalk this up to his honest ignorance.
I found more examples of Ken’s Honesty:
1. Ken Miller is the guy who has taken various bruisings from scientific evidence and continues his misrepresentations and story telling as he did under oath in the Dover trial. [See: Ken Miller may face more embarrassing facts, BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s DBB vindicated and Ken Miller caught making factually incorrect statements under oath]
2. Miller has not (to my knowledge) retracted yet another misrepresentation he made of Behe some time back.
Mike Gene observes in 9+2 = Straw:
In his book, Finding DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s God, Miller finds himself Ã¢â‚¬Å“amusedÃ¢â‚¬Â at BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s argument regarding the eukaryotic flagellum, adding, Ã¢â‚¬Å“A phone call to any biologist who had ever actually studied cilia and flagella would have told Behe that heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong in his contention that the 9+2 structure is the only way to make a working cilium or flagellum.Ã¢â‚¬Â (p.141).
But I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find where Behe ever raised this contention.
what is annoying is that Miller uses this misrepresentation as part of a carefully crafted ad hominem. He begins with Ã¢â‚¬Å“amusementÃ¢â‚¬Â that leads up to his Ã¢â‚¬Å“A phone call to any biologistÃ¢â‚¬Â schtick.