Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ken Miller is a creationist — although you didn’t hear it from me

William Dembski
September 9, 2006
Darwinism, Evolution, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Paul Myers, no longer content to shoot himself in the foot, is now focusing on more vital parts of his anatomy. Check out the following: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php. Ken Miller is the best friend Myers and his merry band of atheists ever had, putting a veneer of respectability and religious tolerance over the village atheism of Darwin’s most ardent followers.

Comments
[...] Bill Dembski noted that the inimitable PZ Myers has attacked Ken Miller, anti-ID Catholic poster boy, for thinking there is any evidence for theism. [...]How pro-Darwin Catholic biochemist Ken Miller came to be hated one fifth as much as non-Darwin Catholic biochemist Michael Behe | Uncommon Descent
May 23, 2007
May
05
May
23
23
2007
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
When I tried to post on Pharygula, P.Z. Meyers' personal blog, I was greeted with "your stench has preceeded you," followed by immediate bannishment, one of my more treasured achievements in the wonderful world of cyberdom. From that time on he irreversably became M.P. Zeyers. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. davisonJohn A. Davison
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
DaveScot,
I also sent an email to Micah asking him to see if he can figure out why edited comments get a / inserted before every ‘ and “. Weird.
This is a known bug in WordPress that has supposedly been fixed in the latest version. http://wordpress.org/support/topic/86389sagebrush gardener
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Thanks; it's nice to be back! I'm almost done with Miller's book. It's a very interesting attempt to have theology without teleology. (Since it's a theology consistent with Darwinism, it would have to be non-teleological.) I definitely give Miller kudos for trying to have his cake and eat it, too. But beyond that, I'm not too sure, yet.Carlos
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
I tried to post on Alan's blog but it appears you have to initiate your own blog to do so - which I have no interest in doing.avocationist
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Welcome back, Carlos.tribune7
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Ken Miller video on YouTube: *** The Colbert Report on Evolution vs Creationism *** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4DJznVkFfU&mode=related&search=JGuy
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Fross, So if Behe represents the true core of what I.D. really means, and Ken Miller represents the true core of what evolution really means, and they both agree on the biological history of earth, then why is there a debate going on at all? A very good question indeed. I’m really confused. Is this debate even about evolution? Or is it more about abiogenesis? ID is about detecting design. ID does not attempt a refutation of evolution. As one of its critics you might be in a better position to detail what it is ID's opponents are debating. Surely I.D. requires some tinkering moments in the biological history of earth. (Cambrian explosion) Why? Did you read where Behe and Dembski said that ID does not require such tinkering? So to counter that misunderstanding of how evolution works, it’s usually described as unguided or blind. I don’t think the unguided was ever meant to be a statement on God, but on the process itself. ... The use of terms like “unguided” and “blind” are attempts at correcting this. Unfortunately these terms stepped on the toes of some people who felt “unguided” was a statement on their deity. I believe you are wrong. I think the argument has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of the process and everything to do with making a statement about God. From Darwin's Origins... on it has been presented as a theological concern. If Darwinists didn't mean 'random' they wouldn't have said it. 'Unpredictable' would have made the point from the beginning if that were truly the intent. Also, if they meant that 'unguided' only meant that complexity didn't increase necessarily with evolutionary time then Darwinists such as Harvard's George Gaylord Simpson wouldn't say such things as: "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity. ...Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." [rev. ed. 1967, p. 344-45] Something isn’t “more evolved” if it’s more complex. Then you have no problem with the idea of the BF preceding the TTSS, eukaryotes preceding prokaryotes, the greater complexity of LUCA* as compared to modern organisms, or biological front-loading of information and complexity on general? Besides, this pseudo-orthogenesis is not a misunderstanding of the ignorant, but a working assumption of biologists in the field, and part of the package which is in continual need of refuting: “Data from many sources, give no direct evidence that eukaryotes evolved by genome fusion between archaea and bacteria.”  ... “Unfortunately, such a model has been tacitly favored by molecular biologists who appeared to view evolution as an irreversible march from simple prokaryotes to complex eukaryotes, from unicellular to multicellular.”Kurland, Collins and Penny, “Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells,” Science, 19 May 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5776, pp. 1011 - 1014, DOI: 10.1126/science.1121674. How else did Darwin, for instance, propose the evolution of the eye but from a "simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect"? *The idea that organisms become more complex rather than less as you get closer to the root of the tree of life is impossible to swallow, says [David] Saul [U. of Auckland, NZ].  A single LUCA “would have to have had the most bizarre biochemistry imaginable”. John Whitfield in the Feb. 19 issue of Nature.Charlie
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
The problem appears to be fixed now. We can continue at Alan's blog.crandaddy
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
Carlos, I'm having trouble getting my comment to show up at Alan's blog, so I'll post it here. You can leave your response either here or there. I'll try to have the problem fixed sometime tomorrow.
Hi Carlos, I appreciate your response. (BTW, would you prefer I call you Carlos or Dr. Spinoza?) I’d like to focus on your first paragraph right now if you don’t mind. You mention arrowheads and paintings and say that we can infer that these things are designed because we know the causal processes involved. Let’s suppose you’re out walking around in a natural setting and you come across a rock on the ground that looks strikingly like an arrowhead. In fact, it looks like the most perfectly formed arrowhead you’ve ever seen. Are you justified in concluding that this is an actual artifact crafted by an intelligent agent? Couldn’t it just as easily be the product of wind and erosion? Why isn’t the irregularly shaped rock sitting a few feet away from it designed? Consider this post I made three months ago: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1194 . Both formations bear a resemblance of a face, and both could just as easily have been physically caused by either humans or natural erosion. Yet one is considered to be an artifact of the Olmec civilization while the other is regarded simply as the product of erosion. It seems that our detection of design is—in at least some instances—independent of our knowledge of physical causal processes.
crandaddy
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
[Updated 9.10.06] I don’t know what I was thinking. He’s back if he’ll have us. Yes, I would like to come back. Thank you very much, Dr. Dembski.Carlos
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Bill Thanks for restoring Carlos! Nobody could quite figure out what he did and there was a lot of guessing going on. I also sent an email to Micah asking him to see if he can figure out why edited comments get a / inserted before every ' and ". Weird.DaveScot
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Fross: I am not sure what the false idea is that you believe "random and unguided" to be a useful correction of. Is it the idea that increasing complexity is associated with further evolution? Or is it the idea that a particular KIND, (lets say elephants) would eventually move towards bipedalism as some kind of logical and predetermined superior state? These are very different ideas, and not really related at all.tinabrewer
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
So if Behe rules out a "preceding state" then doesn't that require a break in common ancestry? Or would it be more like some saltation event where the new genetic code was inserted in one generation but the common descent pattern is still there? Also, you miss my point about the ladder of evolution. While complexity may increase, this isn't a ladder that's predetermined and there's no inherent intelligence in the process. Something isn't "more evolved" if it's more complex. A good example of this misunderstanding is Hollywood's depiction of evolution. In the movie Evolution, single celled creatures from outerspace landed on earth and they had this sort of progressive evolution until they evolved into these bipedal ape like aliens. Star Trek: the Next Generation had an episode where the crew all "devolved" to their ancestral animal form as if any type of animal can eventually evolve into a "more evolved" humanoid creature. The worst offender was the movie Mission to Mars, where the astronauts learn that Martians seeded the earth with microbes that were designed to evolve into humans. While depicting this, they showed dinosaurs morphing into elephants and somehow the chain ended in the ultimate human form. This depiction of evolution is the mainstream depiction and it's completely false. The use of terms like "unguided" and "blind" are attempts at correcting this. Unfortunately these terms stepped on the toes of some people who felt "unguided" was a statement on their deity.Fross
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Fross, All Behe has done is present a few instances of complex systems where there is no obviously preceding state. All the Darwinists have done to counteract that claim is say that there are instances when the proteins in the existing state have had another use someplace. They have not provided any sequence of preceding states for the system in question, most often only providing instances of the protein or something similar having a use elsewhere. Ken Miller is one of those who has led the charge against Behe. I think most of us are aware of the biological possibility that some strain of something like e-coli could kill every other life form on the planet and this would theoretically be within the theory of evolution. James Valentine, who is the dean of invertebrate paleontology, makes a big deal of the constant increase of the number of cell types in animals and believes it will continue. At present it is over 200 and was about 30-40 at the Cambrian Explosion and only one a couple hundred million years earlier. So while there can definitely be regressions some Darwinists believe the march of complexity moves on and the evidence supports it.jerry
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Fross, It is certainly true that Miller and Behe are not so far apart. The difference lies in that whereas Behe thinks design is detectable, Miller speculates about God acting in the quantum realm and he says that he personally believes in God, but he has not strayed out of bounds by saying we can ever observe evidence of God/Mind/Intelligence/Purpose. This is why I said theistic evolutionists eviscerated themselves. Because there seems to be an agreement that so long as they adhere to keeping God in an utterly separate supernatural realm with no detectible role, they they can be allowed in the science club. This position is not logical, not coherent, and not particularly likely, and I suspect it is held by an act of will, rather than real thought.avocationist
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Davescot writes: So where is the funding supposed to come from when any taxpayer derived is verboten? How about the John Tempelton Foundation, who's stated mission is "to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the ‘Big Questions.’ "cjok
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
But Carlos, You nonetheless missed my point that you have made a blanket assumption that everyone is attached to their personal philosophy first, and then seeks the origins paradigm that best fits. Whereas I was trying to point out that it is possible to be more truth oriented. Some people, convinced by arguments, have changed their origins beliefs. *** Oh dear! I just got the part where Carlos is banned - I thought he was always polite - but I had been meaning to point out to him that while the alien progenitors idea is very interesting and I consider it a very likely occurrence on our planet, it really doesn't solve the question of origins at all, just removes it a step. If the ID inference is correct, what difference does it make if we remove the problem one step in time and distance to another planet. And by the way, I think said aliens did not originate life forms here at all, but were probably genetic tinkerers as we are now doing with our genetic engineering. *** It seems to me that PZ Meyers is saying it isn't OK to be a theistic evolutionist, which is a shame, since the theistic evolutionists appear to have eviscerated themselves in order to be able to play on the science playground. **** I thought maybe Carlos got banned for saying he was going to make the TID label to differentiate between those who think aliens did it. I cannot believe he got banned for saying he did not believe the basic tenets of ID hold water - lots of people say that.avocationist
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Tina, We make those claims here and are willing to support those claims. Carlos, never supplied any specifics for his latest claim so he could not be challenged on anything. It would have been nice to push Carlos to the wall on this to see what he would or would not say. On a couple other threads here when he was challenged he then punted. That is why it is so nice to have the Darwinists here, to see where they run when pushed. Carlos insulted those who espouse ID but provided no evidence. How long would you last at PZ Meyer's site if you went there and say that his work is vacuous and especially if you provide nothing to back up your claim.jerry
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Tina If you (and Crandaddy, and anyone else, for that matter) would like to continue a dialogue with Carlos, there is a forum open here.Alan Fox
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
So if Behe represents the true core of what I.D. really means, and Ken Miller represents the true core of what evolution really means, and they both agree on the biological history of earth, then why is there a debate going on at all? I'm really confused. Is this debate even about evolution? Or is it more about abiogenesis? Surely I.D. requires some tinkering moments in the biological history of earth. (Cambrian explosion) Also, there is a deep misunderstanding of how evolution works in general. Most people (in the US) think it means species will automatically go up a ladder of progression, and that somehow the process has some kind of intelligence to it. (ie the animal tries to evolve itself, or the evolution ladder is predetermined and all species can eventually evolve to be intelligent bipedal beings, etc) So to counter that misunderstanding of how evolution works, it's usually described as unguided or blind. I don't think the unguided was ever meant to be a statement on God, but on the process itself.Fross
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Mats says "Sure they are, and Alvin Platinga gave an example. If someone were to say ‘God created 3 meters rabbits in Iceland, is this testable? Yes, go to ICeland, and check it. Is it falsifiable? Yes." If 3 meter rabbits were found in Iceland that would only confirm that 3 meter rabbits exist in Iceland, not that God created them just because somebody said so.bebbo
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Carlos wasn't so bad.BK
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
jerry, thanks. However, they say that all the time, don't they? That is why there is disagreement as opposed to agreement. I thought. I think their science is bankrupt and vacuuous, and WE here certainly make that point often enough.tinabrewer
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Tina, Carlos, essentially said that the owner of this site was intellectually bankrupt and provided no evidence for his claim. His words "Speaking strictly for myself, it’s because I think the notions of “informational complexity and probability” at work in ID theory are vacuous by contemporary standards of empirical and mathematical precision." Now I do not know if that is what got Carlos banned but it essentially said ID is vacuous, and by implication those who use probability and information science as a basis for it must be inept.jerry
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
was there a reason that Carlos was kicked off? I read his comments and found them to be helpful. I am confused...tinabrewer
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
In other words, first convince the materialists that the evidence suports ID, THEN present it in schools, right? It was a question, Mats. I am unaware of a proposed research hypothesis. I would be grateful if you or anyone could correct me if this is not so by advising me of such a hypothesis.Alan Fox
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Alan Fox,
What ID research programs have been proposed, and isn’t it putting the cart before the horse to talk about dicussing ID as science in schools before any such research hypothesis has been proposed?
In other words, first convince the materialists that the evidence suports ID, THEN present it in schools, right?Mats
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
An ID research programs is not eligible for public funding and could not be discussed in a public school.
What ID research programs have been proposed, and isn't it putting the cart before the horse to talk about dicussing ID as science in schools before any such research hypothesis has been proposed?Alan Fox
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Ken Miller claims to believe that physichemical laws can account for the origin and development of anabolic metabolism. That is not a scientific belief system. This is a battle of Materialist Faiths. Let 'em fight.mmadigan
September 10, 2006
September
09
Sep
10
10
2006
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply