You don’t have to believe in God but that’s less complex than the typical alternatives.
Miller: Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination.
Question: If someone proposed Darwinism for the first time today, now that we know all that we know about the hard-to-fathom complexity of life, would people as readily accept it?
Miller quotes, “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument. –
Robert G. B. Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, Pp. 37-38” That’s a devastating indictment, given that the whole point of Darwinism was to demonstrate that life could come into existence purely by random processes.
Brian Miller: Biologists wedded to scientific materialism have argued that life is so different from human artifacts that they can dismiss engineers’ conclusions about organisms’ limited evolvability. The central fallacy in this argument is that nearly every difference between human creations and life makes the latter ever more challenging to design. And the challenges translate into more daunting obstacles for any evolutionary scenario.
A quibble with Brian Miller’s analysis above: It’s not “philosophy” as such that fronts Darwin’s stranglehold on the discussion of evolution. It’s the power to cause career ruin. That’s the stick end of politics, not of philosophy.
From the intro: “Miller and Anderson boil it all down and argue that Tour is right and Farina wrong on multiple levels.”
In this podcast, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Brian Miller discuss science and faith, including a presentation by Dr. Miller, showing his extensive expertise in the application of thermodynamics and information theory to the problem of the origin of life.
Fine-tuning of the universe is one of those concepts that can pass every possible evidence test and still be rejected because it is just not supposed to be true. No matter how foolish the arguments against it are, they will always appear preferable. If the situation results in confusion, well, confusion is clarity.
A genuine discussion between Helen Hansma and Brian Miller in the Letters Section about whether mica sheets made a difference. A refuge for serious dialogue. No pussyhats. No political endorsements.
It’s not that the public has become smarter but the discussion has gone on for so long that Darwinians can’t get away with just sneering. And their hats don’t have many rabbits left either.
Miller: One of the central requirements of design arguments is to evaluate the probability of patterns emerging through undirected processes.
Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.
If we create a great deal of fuzz around the questions, we can certainly smother any growing realization that intelligence underlies life.
It would be fun to discuss the history of life for once without the dead hand of Darwin overruling all. From the looks of things, it may also be possible now.