Intelligent Design

Miller the Malignant

Spread the love

Devoid of real arguments, Ken Miller has resorted to unsavory rhetoric and misrepresentations in his attempt to discredit the fine work of biochemist Michael Behe. Behe has finally responded to Miller’s antics at Amazon:

Response to Miller Part I

Response to Miller Part II

Regrettably, that’s Miller’s own special style. He doesn’t just sneer and thump his chest, as some other Darwinists do. He uses less savory tactics, too….

Call it the principle of malignant reading. He’s been doing it for years with the arguments of Darwin’s Black Box, and he continues it in this review.


I’m posting this thread since a lot of the UD readers may want to air their opinions of Ken Miller after reading Michael Behe’s response at Amazon.

[I invite UD readers to also compare my earlier take on Miller’s antics in light Behe’s recent comments. See: Ken Miller, the honest Darwinist.]

PS
By the way, Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross managed to snooker the editors of TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences. The editors allowed Forrest and Gross to spew out an anti-Behe essay to its subscribers.

PvM (my old nemesis and almost lovable counterpart at PT) reports in Forrest and Gross: Biochemistry by design how Forrest and Gross are calling for more anti-Behe action in the wake of Dover. Apparently, the Darwinists are realizing they can only get so much milelage out of the fact the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rubber stamped a cut-and-pasted legal opinion on their behalf. Jones’ cut-and-pasted opinion hasn’t been enough to stem the advance of ID in the court of public opinion and the free market place of ideas.

What’s regrettable is that one of the pro-ID papers Behe published was in TRENDS 17 years ago. Now this very same journal allows a smear campaign to be waged on it’s pages against him. I reported earlier on how this article 17 years ago has continued to find empirical vindication. See: Zuck is out of luck, marsupial findings vindicate Behe, Denton, Hoyle

6 Replies to “Miller the Malignant

  1. 1
    Jason Rennie says:

    And he never got back to me about an interview for Darwin or Design either !!

  2. 2
    tribune7 says:

    That’s a slam dunk for Behe!

    one in 1020

    He probaby should give up superscript for the Amazon reviews and stick to a caret.

  3. 3
    shaner74 says:

    And Behe opens up another can of whoop a**. He’s the chance-worshipers worst nightmare. Behe argues based upon scientific fact, not the “should have” “would have” “could have” stories of the opposition. They know this, and their only hope of keeping Darwin safe is to slander Behe in the hopes the public won’t believe him. It’s exactly what we’ve come to expect of the science-haters who can’t tolerate attacks on their faith (or their cash cow).

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    I find it amazing that darwinists still act like they have conclusive proof for evolution. In the past this belief was somewhat tenable because we did not know what the workings of darwin’s molecular black box were, but now it is clearly demonstrated that ALL mutations on the molecular level that have been claimed as proof for evolution turn out to “break things”. In Behe’s excellent “trench warfare” analogy, there is only loss of functional genetic information by both sides in all examples of “evolution” known to man. If all known examples of evolution, to the molecular level of organisms, in fact loses functional genetic information, then what the empirical evidence dictates is that a major shift in paradigms occur. A shift that will encompass this principle of genetic entropy into science.

  5. 5
    russ says:

    Off Topic: From the Wall Street Journal editorial page…

    THE NEW NEW ATHEISM
    Attacking “God” has become a lucrative book business. But there’s not much substance behind the latest atheist tracts.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/.....=110010341

  6. 6
    scordova says:

    Behe points out Miller’s scientific incompetence. First here is what Miller wrote:

    Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is “beyond the edge of evolution”, [Behe] 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, 97-101; 2006), the ‘evolvability’ of new functions in existing proteins — studies on serum paraxonase (PON1) traced the evolution of several new catalytic functions (Nature Genet. 37, 73-76; 2005) — or the modular evolution of cellular signalling circuitry (Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75, 655-680; 2006).

    Ken Miller

    Michael “Darwin Slayer” Behe responds brilliantly:

    Now, dear reader, when Miller writes of “protein-to-protein” binding sites in one sentence, wouldn’t you expect the papers he cites in the next sentence would be about protein-to-protein binding sites? Well — although the casual reader wouldn’t be able to tell — they aren’t. None of the papers Miller cites involves protein-protein binding sites. The Science paper concerns protein-steroid-hormone binding; the Nature Genetics paper deals with the enzyme activity of single proteins; and the Annual Reviews paper discusses rearrangement of pre-existing protein binding domains. What’s more, none of the papers deals with evolution in nature. They all concern laboratory studies where very intelligent investigators purposely re-arrange, manipulate, and engineer isolated genes (not whole cells or organisms) to achieve their own goals. Although such studies can be very valuable, they tell us little about how a putatively blind, random evolutionary process might proceed in unaided nature.

    Behe notes that Miller made a mistake. “The Science paper concerns protein-steroid-hormone binding” not protein-proteint binding.

    A steriod is a lipid and not a protein. Miller apparently can’t even get his basic biochemistry right and yet he’s a wealthy high school textbook author.

Leave a Reply