15 Responses to “David Heddle Reviews Ken Miller's Talk”

1. Bilbo Says:
   March 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm

   I guess the term "Theistic Evolutionist" covers a broad range of views. But I'm curious about this:

   Miller said something that I have been saying for years: that as a theist he is, like all other theists, a believer in a small i, small d intelligent designer. I was impressed that he didn't go on and on about how this doesn't mean he is an IDer"”he assumed that the students would grasp the distinction, and they did.

   I'm embarrassed to say that I don't grasp the distinction.

Comment by Bilbo — March 22, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

2. thechristiancynic Says:
   March 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm

   Another way to state the distinction is that Miller believes that the universe was designed by an intelligent person (God) but that he does not adhere to Intelligent Design as a scientific theory of origins.

   I'm sort of puzzled as to Miller's rejection of the "theistic evolutionist" label as well since I've always seen it as a blanket term for a theist who believes that macroevolution, common descent, etc. have occurred and that it was the intent of a Creator rather than solely impersonal processes. Miller's objections seem to be rather specific corollary beliefs that many theistic evolutionists hold but which don't seem (at least to me) necessary for the label to be fitting. Perhaps he's just tired of being lumped in with groups of people he disagrees with (e.g. creationists) and wants to avoid labels so that he can simply clarify his own positions. If so, I can understand that.

Comment by thechristiancynic — March 22, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   March 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm

   David writes:

   In terms of his theology, he insists that he is not a theistic evolutionist, although he lamented that even his friends call him that. I would agree"”the usual notion of theistic evolution is that God continues or at least could continue to intervene"”as the Great Genetic Engineer. Also, a garden-variety theistic evolutionist would still insist that our species, as part of God's plan, was inevitable. But Miller does not concede that"”he concedes only that some big brain species was inevitable and that God could have used, say, big-brained dinosaurs instead of "hairless, bipedal primates."

   This makes for an interesting development on this argument.

Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

4. kornbelt888 Says:
   March 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm

   Miller claims to be a Christian. Does Miller believe that God created the universe with mankind and mankind's redemption in mind, and that Jesus Christ was the Lamb Crucified before the foundation of the earth, or not?

   Big i, little i, what the hell is the difference here to a guy like him?

Comment by kornbelt888 — March 22, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

5. Mung Says:
   March 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 am

   I'm embarrassed to say that I don't grasp the distinction.

   Simple. The small i small d "designer" does not meddle in the world.

   I fail to understand how a small i small d "god" could be incarnated in Jesus Christ, and it should therefore be no wonder that I could care less whether Miller calls himself a Christian, he obviously is not one, or at least not in any sense that I understand the term.

   For the theistic evolutionist, God at least acts in the world. So I can understand why Miller does not consider himself a TE. But, having read "Darwin's God," I am confused about why Miller's "god" would need to act through indeterminate quantum events.

   My personal opinion is that Dr. Miller is too busy promoting his views to stop to see whether they are even internally coherent. They are not.

Comment by Mung — March 23, 2008 @ 12:22 am

6. Nathan Says:
   March 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm

   Quoting Heddle:
   "
   The most effective part of his presentation was arguing against the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Showing how the parts of the flagellum have other functions is a strong rebuttal."

   Would it not be much stronger to demonstrate an actual pathway detailing how cooption works. Having other functions is a start but lacks detailed specificity.

Comment by Nathan — March 23, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

7. Nick Says:
   March 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

   Ditto on the surprise that he rejects the term "theistic evolutionist," and I'm not sure that all theistic evolutionists must agree that God is a "small i, small d" intelligent designer, either.

   I'm content with the label "theistic evolutionist," and I believe that:
   a) God is the Creator;
   b) the history and process by which God created living things is best explained by modern evolutionary biology, rather than "Intelligent Design" in its various incarnations;
   c) that process included events that we (correctly) perceive as chance or the results of natural selection, but
   d) those events were nevertheless known to God "before" the creation of the Universe, the universe is sustained by God's will, and nothing happens contrary to his will.

   Any apparent contradiction between c) and d) can be chalked up to the failure of human intellect and language to apprehend or describe a God who transcends time and the universe.

   I would hesitate to apply the label of "designer" to God, because I think that definitions of design and theories of intelligent design tend to implicitly or explicitly recognize the existence of undesigned objects. A puddle of water, a sedimentary rock, a flagellum, and an aardvark are all equally created even though they are not all recognizably designed, so "design" isn't a very good synonym for "create."

Comment by Nick — March 24, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

8. Deuce Says:
   March 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

   thechristiancynic:

   I'm sort of puzzled as to Miller's rejection of the "theistic evolutionist" label as well since I've always seen it as a blanket term for a theist who believes that macroevolution, common descent, etc. have occurred and that it was the intent of a Creator rather than solely impersonal processes.

   Well, I think that's it. He doesn't believe that it was the intent of a Creator rather than solely impersonal processes. His position, as of now, seems to be something like "Man is the product of an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process that did not have him in mind. Oh, and also God fits in there somewhere, I guess."

   This fits in pretty well with that recent article on ScienceDaily, where he says that "People want to believe that life isn't purposeless and random" and then quite explicitly argues that scientists should try to appeal to this sense of and desire for purpose by replacing it with talk of Darwinian "purpose". In other words, a theistic evolutionist would answer people's need for purpose by saying "You were intended by God according to his purpose. He just used indirect processes to accomplish it." whereas Miller says "Okay, you actually have no real purpose. But, hey, we can use the word 'purpose' to talk about Darwinian adaptation instead, and that's the next best thing, right?!"

   I concur with Mung where he says "My personal opinion is that Dr. Miller is too busy promoting his views to stop to see whether they are even internally coherent." Miller's job isn't to promote a coherent Christian theology, but to promote Darwinism to uneasy Christians by whatever means are at his disposal. To that end, his main role is to say "Hey, look at me, I'm a Darwinist and also a Catholic, and you can be too!" – logical consistency is an optional afterthought here.

Comment by Deuce — March 24, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

9. Steve Petermann Says:
   March 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   Hi Nathan,

   Would it not be much stronger to demonstrate an actual pathway detailing how cooption works. Having other functions is a start but lacks detailed specificity.

   Yes, this is where the devil is in the details. From an engineering perspective it would make the most sense for evolution to coopt components already available for molecular machines like the flagellum. However, that is not anywhere near enough. Structures like the flagellum bear such a striking similarity to human made machines that one would also expect them to also have a very tight specificity in both the components and the assembly instructions. The components that make up the motor, the bearings, the universal joint, the whip, etc are interdependent on one another not just from the conformal standpoint but also in their dynamic characteristics (i.e. tensile and torsional strength, toughness, torque, rpm, modulus of elasticity, temperature variances, fits and tolerances, and on and on. At least if one was to design such a device there would be hundreds of design decisions to make and exponentially many more ways to foul up than to make it work.

   Then from the standpoint of gradualistic precursors there are even greater obstacles because with each stage toward the final product the design space shrinks. For instance if certain precursor components are too large, too small, too weak, have too much torque, don't fit well with others, then you can't just tweak it for a fix. Since there are multiple dependences, you'd have to backtrack to some point.

   I offered a sketchy outline of this here. Then even if all the components were just right, there still has to be tightly controlled assembly processes that are also interdependent. When I think of all the tightly specific mutation sets required for all this, I'm just bewildered how it could come about without an intentionality of some sort.

Comment by Steve Petermann — March 24, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

10. Steve Petermann Says:
    March 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    From David Heddle's review of Miller's talk:

    But Miller does not concede that"”he concedes only that some big brain species was inevitable and that God could have used, say, big-brained dinosaurs instead of "hairless, bipedal primates."

    If Miller thinks that certain things were inevitable then I wonder why he might not embrace a non-interventionist theology like the one Behe offers in his new book. Behe seems to think that there is an extended fine tuning from the beginning where some of the complex structures and processes (that he thinks couldn't come about randomly) were "preprogrammed" (my term) from the beginning. Then from that initial frontloading, secondary forces just do what they do and bring together the unlikely combinations required. It seems a strange theology to me, but I would think Miller could embrace it since it doesn't necessarily contradict Darwinian theory where luck can be a component. That is unless Miller truly believes that all mutations and the processes that create them are entirely unguided and unplanned.

Comment by Steve Petermann — March 24, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

11. Mung Says:
    March 24th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    How can a small i small d "god" die on a cross in Palestine at the hands of Roman soldiers?

    Such a "god" would have to enter into history.

    If such an entry was not necessitated by the "laws" of physics, chemistry, and biology, then such an entry must surely have been "interventionist."

Comment by Mung — March 24, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

12. Bilbo Says:
    March 25th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Nick,

    This is the first time that I know of your going on record as a Theistic Evolutionist. I wish I had more time to explore what you mean by it. Perhaps tomorrow.

Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

13. Nick Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am

    Bilbo,

    Feel free, if you have time. I'll check the thread from time to time.

Comment by Nick — March 26, 2008 @ 10:21 am

14. Bilbo Says:
    March 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Nick, you wrote:
    

    c) that process included events that we (correctly) perceive as chance or the results of natural selection, but
    d) those events were nevertheless known to God "before" the creation of the Universe, the universe is sustained by God's will, and nothing happens contrary to his will.

    I'm wondering whether or not you think this would be consistent with Behe's proposal in the latter part of The Edge of Evolution, where he offers the scenario of God (or the uberphysicist) choosing from a very large number of potential universes the one that produces us, and "adds water" or whatever He would need to do to actualize it. If I recall, all the events in that universe result from chance, and the designing takes place in choosing and actualizing the right universe.

Comment by Bilbo — March 26, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

15. Nick Says:
    March 27th, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Hi Bilbo,

    That sounds closer to deism than I would like, and I'm not comfortable with making a distinction between God's "choosing" and "chance." I believe that God sustains the universe, rather than creating the starting point an winding it up, but God's activity encompasses what we call chance. In general, however, I think this sort of discussion runs into problems, because we lack the framework to discuss it coherently.

Comment by Nick — March 27, 2008 @ 8:33 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.