Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts: How Ken Miller Misrepresented Phil Johnson

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An old debate, featuring Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Paul Nelson, has found its way onto YouTube. The debate took place at the time of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania in 2005. Moderated by Sally Satel at the American Enterprise Institute, it focuses on the question of teaching evolutionary theory and intelligent design in science classrooms.

Ken Miller’s presentation is predictable: He talks about the type III secretion system and the fusion origin of chromosome 2; about how ID is allegedly nothing more than a negative argument against evolution and really a form of disguised creationism. His arguments have been so thoroughly responded to at ENV and elsewhere that further discussion is unnecessary.

I do, however, want to draw attention to a particular moment in the debate, which you can view for yourself by playing the above video from 39 minutes in. Miller quotes Phil Johnson as stating:

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”

On his PowerPoint slide, Ken Miller even provides a citation to Church & State magazine, and it turns out that this very article is available online.

You will find that the quote from Miller’s PowerPoint presentation is not from the pen of Phil Johnson at all. Rather, it is a paraphrase or (more accurately) a caricature of Johnson by Rob Boston, a critic of ID! Here’s the passage from the original article:

A second speaker itching to get his religious perspective into public schools is Phillip Johnson, a University of California at Berkeley law professor who has written several books attacking evolution. Asserting that Darwinism is “based on awful science, just terrible,” Johnson said the theory has “divided the people of God” and that means “the way is open for the agnostics to say, ‘We need to put all of this aside.'”Johnson calls his movement “The Wedge.” The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”

Surprisingly, this quotation is attributed to Johnson on several webpages (e.g. herehere, and here), although Wikipedia does correctly attribute the statement.

Cross-posted from Evolution News & Views.

Comments
Fifth, I wish the lecturers to treat their subject as a strictly natural science, the greatest of all possible sciences, indeed, in one sense, the only science, that of Infinite Being, without reference to or reliance upon any supposed special exceptional or so-called miraculous revelation. I wish it considered just as astronomy or chemistry is. I have intentionally indicated, in describing the subject of the lectures, the general aspect which personally I would expect the lectures to bear, but the lecturers shall be under no restraint whatever in their treatment of their theme; for example, they may freely discuss (and it may be well to do so) all questions about man's conceptions of God or the Infinite, their origin, nature, and truth, whether he can have any such conceptions, whether God is under any or what limitations, and so on, as I am persuaded that nothing but good can result from free discussion.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/will.asp Poor Gregory.Mung
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Hopefully not too far off topic, but I would also like to draw attention to the fact that neo-Darwinism has no falsification criteria:
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
neo-Darwinian evolution simply has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it to see if it is true or false, much less does it have any formal structure we can analyze in any computer simulation.
Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE
As pointed out by Dr. Berlinski, this includes failing to have any realistically modeled ‘Evolutionary Algorithm’. i.e. what we have are computer programs that have been ‘intelligently designed’ by computer programmers with a lot of ad hoc constraints (explain that caveat to me!) to simulate Darwinian evolution::
Refutation of Evolutionary Algorithms https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1h33EC4yg29Ve59XYJN_nJoipZLKIgupT6lBtsaVQsUs
Whereas, in contrast to there being no identifiable falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism (at least no identifiable falsification criteria that neo-Darwinists will accept), ID, on the other hand, does provide a fairly rigid mathematical framework for falsification:
Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity) Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU
Dr. Behe lays out the simple empirical methodology for achieving falsification against ID here (gene knockout experiments):
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
The main reason why it is impossible to find a mathematical falsification criteria against neo-Darwinism is because of the insistence of the 'random' variable postulate at the base of the Darwinian theory:
Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64. “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - "The dilemma is this: Surveying our surroundings, we find them to be far from a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”. The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance. Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study;,,. Accordingly, we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics–out of the differential equations. Naturally, therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere. By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a boundary–a beginning of time–which we cannot climb over. A way out of the dilemma has been proposed which seems to have found favour with a number of scientific workers. I oppose it because I think it is untenable, not because of any desire to retain the present dilemma, I should like to find a genuine loophole. But that does not alter my conviction that the loophole that is at present being advocated is a blind alley. Eddington AS. 1931. The end of the world: from the standpoint of mathematical physics. Nature 127:447-453.
And indeed as Eddinton saw, and as Boltzmann's Brain so clearly illustrates, the 'randomness' postulate of materialists/naturalists comes back full force at the beginning of the universe to inflict epistemological failure on the materialist/naturalist:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
But none of this should be surprising in the least, for it is absurd to think that 'randomness' can be the basis of math instead of just a interesting sub-area of 'allowed' variation within the entire field of math. Indeed, as Godel proved, only God can provide a coherent basis for math!:
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
Supplemental notes:
Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 The 'Spirituality' of Mathematics - article https://docs.google.com/document/d/13VBciybSK3D7uJoz6ltldPPSvhL4HJaJAmCmOMkmQxg/edit "Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910
bornagain77
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
What I found interesting in the Nelson/Miller debate was the misfit between their approaches to the topic. Nelson was arguing for a kind of "methodological parity" between design and Darwinian biology, on the grounds that Darwin's argument itself presupposes such a parity. Darwin treats the view of creation as the logical alternative to his view, and tries to use empirical evidence to refute the creation position. There is nothing "ideological" in Nelson's presentation here; he is simply reporting the way that Darwin set up the argument. The implication is that, if school children are going to be taught that Darwin "disproved" the view of special creation, they won't be able to understand the force of Darwin's argument without understanding the view his book argues against; therefore, if Darwin is taught to the kids, intellectual clarity requires that the view of special creation (which need not be the specifically Biblical or Christian view of special creation, but could be just a "general" notion) be set forth, so that the students can understand how Darwin's great scientific victory was won. Ken Miller's presentation, however -- aside from a few hurried remarks regarding Nelson's presentation -- was on "what's wrong with intelligent design as science." It wasn't really focused on the question of philosophical parity. So to some extent the two were talking at cross-purposes. Of course, it is logical that each man would bring his strengths to the table. Miller is a biologist; Nelson a philosopher of biology. But this difference in focus meant that the debate was a sort of ragged affair. They discussed individual points here and there, but the debate would have been much better if both participants had been assigned the same question. The question might have been: Is there methodological parity between intelligent design and Darwinian theory, and if so, what are the implications of that for science education? Under that question, Miller might have argued: yes, there is a philosophical parity -- it's fair to compare them, and when we do, we find that ID is lousy science, so it should be kept out of schools. Or he might have argued, no, there is no parity, ID is not bad science, it's simply not science at all, and therefore it must be kept out of the schools. I generally find that these debates go all over the map; I think more clarity would emerge if those sponsoring the debates would narrow the questions, and then find participants well-suited to debating the narrowed question. For some questions, a good matchup would be Behe/Miller; for others, Nelson/Dennett; for others, Johnson/Dawkins.Timaeus
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Nick, Miller blew it because: 1- The debate is NOT creationism vs evolution 2- ID has nothing to do with God 3- ID has nothing to do with the Bible And evolutionists say that the "theory" of evolution is atheistic.Joe
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Since provoked, I might add something about my supposed calamitous fall into ID. I read "Darwin's Black Box" in 1998, heard Phillip Johnson speak over a decade ago (before Gregory had heard of ID, I suspect), have a friend of 30 years who is prominent in the British ID movement, and wrote a critique of BioLogos' treatment of Stephen Meyer's "Signature of the Cell" on my blog back in the middle of 2011. That was long before I spoke to Steve Fuller and Steve Meyer in Cambridge. So my supposed "freefall into IDism" puts Felix Baumgartner in the shade, especially as I'm still a theistic evolutionist. Don't be fooled by Gregory's idealism-ist accusation that I should have nothing to do with ID since my interest in design is theological rather than scientific - you can be sure if I post on my blog about the theological aspects of design he will reply trying to drag the discussion back to isms of one sort or another.Jon Garvey
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
All semantics aside, atheistic neo-Darwinists insist, as if it is some type of religious creed, that for something to be considered 'true science' then it must have a 'naturalistic/materialistic explanation. I don't know exactly how the atheistic neo-Darwinists are able to know prior to investigation that these questions on origins will wind up with purely materialistic/naturalistic answers, but they are absolutely certain that this is the only true way to practice science in these questions of origins.
“For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” Phillip Johnson - The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism-26 There are two definitions of Science in our Culture - Phillip E. Johnson - 2012- audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zK5sqd1SKXo#t=1596s "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
The trouble with the statement/commitment 'science can give only materialistic/naturalistic answers' is that the statement/commitment itself is a metaphysical commitment that is not reducible to materialism/naturalism. It is a philosophical position that is freely chosen by a mind to be adhered to regardless of the fact that it is a self refuting position. Dr. Craig addresses the self-refuting absurdity here: At about the 1 hour mark of the video, which I have ‘current time’ linked here:
Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=3641s
Dr Craig states that Dr. Rosenberg blurs together:
Epistemological Naturalism: which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism: which holds that only physical things exist
As to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig states it is a false theory of knowledge since,,,
a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting
Moreover Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism.,, In fact a Empistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist, according to Dr. Craig, because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points:
1. The argument from the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states implies non-physical minds (dualism), which is incompatible with naturalism 2. The existence of meaning in language is incompatible with naturalism, Rosenberg even says that all the sentences in his own book are meaningless 3. The existence of truth is incompatible with naturalism 4. The argument from moral praise and blame is incompatible with naturalism 5. Libertarian freedom (free will) is incompatible with naturalism 6. Purpose is incompatible with naturalism 7. The enduring concept of self is incompatible with naturalism 8. The experience of first-person subjectivity (“I”) is incompatible with naturalism
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is. Plantinga has shown how the person a-priorily committed to naturalism winds up in epistemological failure that undermines the ability to rationally practice science in the first place:
Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
The preceding arguments are nuances of 'the argument from reason':
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray
Of note: Sometimes Atheists will go so far as to say quantum mechanics refutes the rules of right reason that are at the basis of science. The following site shows why that assertion is not only just plain silly (sawing the tree branch off that you are sitting on) but also completely false:
The Law Of Non-Contradiction as it is related to the discovery of the laws of Quantum Mechanics in the early 20th century https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#LNC
Also of note:
Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ Are Humans merely Turing Machines? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvQeiN7DqBC0Z3PG6wo5N5qbsGGI3YliVBKwf7yJ_RU/edit
bornagain77
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Nullasalus Gregory is actually banned from BioLogos for the personally offensive nature of his remarks there. I've grown used to expecting that if I were to comment on the spelling of "Archaeopteryx" I'd get a diatribe about living in a village, crossing the unwritten boundaries of Warfieldian Theistic Evolutionismism and being a closetist DI-ID-UD-DUMDIDIist, which is why I've stopped responding to him. That, and because after over two years of personal communication I still haven't the faintest idea how human extension has any possible bearing on natural phenomena or creation. No point in conversing with someone who's so far ahead of you you can't catch up in that time.Jon Garvey
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Jon seems to want to defend Nelson instead of Miller simply because he is an evangelical just as Nelson is, not because of ‘reasoning’ instead of ‘polemics’.
"Seems" as in "well, nothing he wrote here indicated that, but I, Gregory, shall construct this possibility out of the many delusions I draw upon when necessary."
Jon, Please stop being so naive about American politics, over there in the U.K. Do you actually think P. Johnson is not himself “doing polemics”? You’ve heard of Johnson’s ‘Wedge,’ haven’t you?
Your opinion of Johnson and the ID movement means bupkus. Jon Garvey didn't say the ID movement was without flaws, much less Johnson. He pointed out an observation he's made about Miller. Don't like it? Tough. Quit trying to change the topic when you don't like the opinion.
As for P. Nelson, when I asked him, he actually seemed to not have thought about the parallels between ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-evolution’ and ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-economics.’ “That’s interesting,” he said to me. Go figure!
The only way an observation like this could seem at all important to someone is if they've spent a significant portion of their life living in a world quite detached from anything approaching a well-nourished intellectual environment. Soft science or liberal arts academia being a prime candidate.
Oh, but wait (stop, hold your horses, folks), ID theory is supposed to officially have *nothing* to do with theology/worldview!
"Theology" is not equivalent with "worldview". A "transcendent action" is only divine in some contexts.
How long is your credulity, Big-ID folks?
"Not enough for Gregory, apparently." It won't be until we're credulous enough to think a "social scientist" deserves some kind of leadership position in the ID movement that folks have reached the necessary credulity level. Gregory, does Biologos take you seriously? Or are you regarded over there as a kind of crazy well-meaning uncle? (I know, I know. Lowercase l in the Biologos. I'm sure that's driving you absolutely bonkers.)nullasalus
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
I am not sure to what degree Miller is misrepresenting Johnson, but he is clearly putting his own words in Johnson's mouth. Boston paraphrases Johnson in the original article, but Miller quotes Boston's paraphrase as if Johnson himself was speaking. Miller's exact words in the video are:
Phillip Johnson, the acknowledged leader of the intelligent design movement laid it on the line a couple of years ago when he said that the objective of his strategy isn't to advance science -- it's to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic. "That", Johnson said, "is going to shift the debate from creation versus evolution to the existence of God versus the non-existence of God." That's the debate he thinks they can win. "From there we can introduce people to the truth of the Bible and the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus."
I think we can agree that Miller is being sloppy with his citations, but is he misrepresenting Johnson?sagebrush gardener
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Jon, Please stop being so naive about American politics, over there in the U.K. Do you actually think P. Johnson is not himself "doing polemics"? You've heard of Johnson's 'Wedge,' haven't you? As the moderator in the video said, "It's a form of intellectual surrender." Please stop being so 'design inference' ideological as you decide whether or not to freefall into IDism. Blaming everything on BioLogos re: evangelicalism is a sad caricature. Your vision of 'Design' is theological, it is not 'natural scientific'; it does not support IDM-ID. "Phillip Johnson, 'godfather of ID', who nukes ID’s pretensions to being science rather than evangelical apologetics." Yes, P. Johnson was obviously doing evangelical apologetics. Jon seems to want to defend Nelson instead of Miller simply because he is an evangelical just as Nelson is, not because of 'reasoning' instead of 'polemics'. Paul Nelson's basic view is: in order to do biology, one must also inevitably do theology/worldview. As for P. Nelson, when I asked him, he actually seemed to not have thought about the parallels between 'micro-' and 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-' and 'macro-economics.' "That's interesting," he said to me. Go figure! It's a typically narrow YEC position, though Nelson himself (as a person) is a decent and humourous guy. And he's invited me for discussion over beer next time (if) we meet. "A design view, with some kind of transcendent action." - Nelson (video) Oh, but wait (stop, hold your horses, folks), ID theory is supposed to officially have *nothing* to do with theology/worldview! Everyone not already committed to evangelical IDism can see through this thin disguise.
“Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” – Paul Nelson
He doesn't "defend his theological [YEC] views as a matter of science" (54:24), but he wants his theological [ID] views to be called 'science.' That's Paul Nelson's personal dilemma. Btw, Paul Nelson's long advertised book "On Common Descent," which likely influenced the naming of this Blog, has *STILL* not been published. In 2011, 12 years after his manuscript was submitted, Paul Nelson wrote:
"The monograph on common descent, mentioned in the older bio, is still under submission at the Evolutionary Monograph series, but the editor (and my friend) Leigh Van Valen, died last October. So publication is delayed."
Nelson is actually expecting us to believe that it is because his friend Leigh Van Valen died in 2010 that his 1999 submitted manuscript still hasn't been published?! How long is your credulity, Big-ID folks?Gregory
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
Funnily enough, I read my first piece by Ken Miller, from roughly the same year, last evening, and came away thinking, "This guy is doing polemics, not reasoning." Misrepresenting his opponent's position seemed one of his characteristic habits, so I'm not at all surprised by this post. Mixing primary and secondary sources is easy to do if you're firing from the hip on a blog - we have probably all done it. But it's poor scholarship - what "melanogaster" on BioLogos would castigate as "hearsay" - if you're writing a book or doing a public lecture.Jon Garvey
February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
I have recently watching youtube stuff on these debates. I never saw till now Ken Miller etc. There must be a better equation about who is right on issues with such common foundations of principals. It surely comes down to who decides what is the truth about origins ! The public, the press, the evolutionists, the creationists or the 1700's AD! If its a subjet touching on truth in origins then surely censorship of certain positions is unique in education and surely means tghere is a public stance on the untruth of what is being censored!! Its not about science credentials! This only matters because if its NOT science it IS religion and so illegal conclusions in public institutions. No way around it logically! If a subject dedicated to teaching the truth has criticisms of censored then its a state opinion it is the final word on the truth. If the criticisms are said to be religious doctrines then the state is officially teaching certain religious doctrines ARE not true! This is illegal by the very law invoked to justify the censorship! By the way another angle is to question if evolutionary biology itself is the result of scientific investigation ! It ain't! Censorship surely can't have the moral edge in a free nation dedicated to teaching the truth to kids! Creationism just needs bigger, louder, law suits that capture important numbers of citizens attention!Robert Byers
February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Miller quoted the article and provided the correct citation to Rob Boston's article right there on his powerpoint slide. Rob Boston's article has some paraphrase and some direct quotes, and Ken Miller correctly quoted this. What's the problem again? Are you denying that Phillip Johnson said any of the thing Boston directly quoted him saying? Maybe your real problem is Phillip Johnson, "godfather of ID", who nukes ID's pretensions to being science rather than evangelical apologetics, there and so many other places.NickMatzke_UD
February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply