Ken Miller: "..the intelligent-design creator was not very intelligent."
by Steve PetermannAccording the MSNBC report on the Dover ID case:
Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People" and said it almost entirely omits any discussion of what causes extinction. If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent-design creator was not very intelligent.
Theists should take note of this. Miller also believes that God created the cosmos and not only endowed it with its laws but also sustains them (so evolution can do its "random and undirected" thing). Since those laws are responsible for this vast extinction, to be consistent, one would also expect Miller to think that God did a poor job of designing them.
September 26th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Ah, yes. The ol' "God didn't do things the way I would have expected a god to do things" philosophical/theological argument.
Unfortunate that this nonsense keeps getting resurrected, and unfortunate that Miller, who should at least be careful with this kind of fallacy (in contrast to an atheist like Dawkins who could at least theoretically embrace the statement with relative internal consistency), is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the dissonance.
Comment by Eric Anderson — September 26, 2005 @ 6:45 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
My Microsoft products are full of bugs and do not work perfectly, and most of the products they designed over the years don't exist anymore. What kind of company would design stuff that becomes extinct over time, and why would they allow bugs to exist in their products?
The answer is clear, there is no such thing as Microsoft, the "products" attributed to the company are not "intelligently designed", they came about spontaneously by undirected material causes. "But wait, I've seen Bill Gates", you say? He's a phony, just an actor paid by the Intelligent Programming creationists as an opiate for the masses.
Comment by Stuart Harris — September 26, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Nicely stated, Steve. Miller's argument is half-baked. Take away the ID movement and Miller would have to defend TE against his own argument. Silly man.
Comment by MikeGene — September 26, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Nice catch. I've seen Miller using the "argument from imperfection" before, and had the same thought then. It isn't an argument against ID, or an argument that God intended to bring about lifeforms (and hence humans) through a seemingly undirected process of chance and law, but rather it's a philosophical argument against theism, and the idea that life (and humans) were intended in any sense at all – kind of a strange argument for a "theistic" evolutionist to make. It directly contradicts his response to the Cardinal.
Comment by Deuce — September 26, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
From the MSNBC report:
Hmmm. Miller set himself up as an expert witness about Behe. Imagine if this had happened in the court room:
The Lawyer introduces Ken Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God." He then reads from the book, noting where Miller finds himself "amused" at Behe's argument regarding the eukaryotic flagellum, adding, "A phone call to any biologist who had ever actually studied cilia and flagella would have told Behe that he's wrong in his contention that the 9+2 structure is the only way to make a working cilium or flagellum." (p.141).
The lawyer then gets out a copy of Darwin's Black Box and hands it to Miller, asking, "Can you please show the Court where Dr. Behe said the 9+2 structure is "the only way to make a working flagellum or cilium?"" Miller can't do it.
The lawyer then adss, "So you do have a history of misrepresenting Dr. Behe's position. The lawyer then holds up Miller's essay and reads, "The author of that piece, my fellow Catholic Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, got the theology exactly right, but erred dramatically in his take on the science and the politics of the "design" movement as it exists in the United States. Knowing how the good Cardinal's words will be misused by the enemies of science in our country, it is important to set the record straight."
He then asks, "Do you consider Dr. Behe an "enemy of science?"
The Lawyer also asks, "Dr. Miller, it is safe to say that you and Dr. Behe are antagonists?"
The lawyer then turns to where Miller discussed his textbook
He again reads from Miller's essay:
Not at all, the lawyer says with emphasis. Then he turns to Dr Miller and hands him something to read to the Court.
Miller reads out loud: "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
The Lawyer then informs the Court that the document was signed by 38 Nobel Prize Winners.
The Lawyer then repeats, "Not at all." He then hands Miller his own textbook and has him read it to the Court:
"In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose."(Biology, Miller & Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 658).
The Lawyer finally quotes the transcript, where Miller says: ""I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design."
The Lawyer then pauses and says, "Dr. Miller, as a scientist, and speaking hypothetically, of course, can you please tell the Court what positive evidence for design would look like?"
Comment by MikeGene — September 26, 2005 @ 9:01 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Okay, so Miller says:
Consider the implication. Miller, as we know, firmly believes ID is unscientific on the grounds that it isn't testable in that it refers to a supernatural intelligence. (for now let's forget whether or not that's even true). Yet, here he is telling us that he knows that if life were intelligently designed, one of the main charactersitics of living things would be non-extinction. How does Miller know this? Has he designed some scientific test to determine what charactersitics designed biological would have and that non-extinction would be among them? Where and how did he conduct this study? Where did he report his research in the peer reviewed scientific journals? I'd sure like to read it! But if ID isn't scientific because it isn't even testable, then how can Miller make any claim about what characteristics biological systems would or would not have? Methinks he confuses his science with his philosophy.
Donald M
Comment by DonaldM — September 26, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Yes, Miller says, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense ", but then proceeds to propose one way of testing that has led him to reject ID. Go figure.
Comment by MikeGene — September 26, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
September 26th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Miller has as much right to claim God didn't do things right as any ID advocate. The difference, of course, is that Miller simply observes how things are; ID proposes that things should be different from the way they are.
I mean, seriously: Is there any finding we can attribute to intelligent design which has produced benefit to science? Should hard, lab bench testing be the standard by which we determine what is science and what is not?
Comment by edarrell — September 26, 2005 @ 11:21 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 1:27 am
edarrell:
Should hard, lab bench testing be the standard by which we determine what is science and what is not?
We are still waiting for that "hard, lab bench testing" that would substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. For example what hard, lab bench testing demonstrates a flagellum can arise in population of single-celled organisms that at one time didn't have one (amongst its individuals)?
edarrell:
Is there any finding we can attribute to intelligent design which has produced benefit to science?
Thanks to the research behind the book The Privileged Planet we now know and understand what it takes to maintain complex life.
Comment by Joe G — September 27, 2005 @ 1:27 am
September 27th, 2005 at 8:46 am
edarrell:
Miller has as much right to claim God didn't do things right as any ID advocate.
Making a claim and substantiating that claim are very different. Maybe someday Miller will be able to substantiate the claims he makes.
edarrell:
The difference, of course, is that Miller simply observes how things are; ID proposes that things should be different from the way they are.
Can you substantiate that claim? IOW show us that ID proposes that things should be different from the way they are.
Comment by Joe G — September 27, 2005 @ 8:46 am
September 27th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Steve,
Thank you for this thread. This is getting even better. Miller Confesses to being a Creationist
Perhaps a new thread is in order for his second day of testimony under cross examination?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 27, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
edarrell writes:
To build on Joe G's comment, in precisely what way does ID propose that should be different from the way are. Quite the contrary, ID proponents and Darwinists are looking at the exact same data but drawing much different conclusions about what the data are telling us. It is the Darwinians who make the claim that if biological systems were designed, then they would be different from what we actually observe. It is they, and not the ID proponents, who must provide evidence for this claim. This is the exact problem with Miller being discussed in this thread. (See my earlier post above.)
For that matter, what is the heuristic value of evolution? Scientific payoff is a tricky business and not as straightforward as many seem to think.
It was hard lab work that led Behe to develop the concept of irreducible complexity in certain biological systems. Chance and necessity, which are the only tools available to evolution, lack the necessary resources to account for such systems. Intelligence has such resources, hence the inference to design. Pretty straightforward, and all based on hard, lab work, as you put it.
Are you seriously suggesting that should it turn out that intelligent design of one sort or another played a significant role in the causal history of biological systems, that science would gain no benefit from that knowledge? That it wouldn't open up new avenues of research? That our understanding of how biological systems work would be impaired rather than expanded?
Comment by DonaldM — September 27, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
MikeGene:
I can think of one possible answer: "I'm not sure what such evidence would look like, in the sense of a biological structure that must have been designed, but I can say with high confidence that we haven't seen any yet."
Comment by ericmurphy — September 27, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Of course you haven't seen anything that looks like it "must have been designed." As you say, you don't know what that would look like.
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Please excuse the interference, but I couldn't resist a response here. You people are a riot!
Telic Thoughts (TT) challenges the credentials of scientists, philosophers and/or theologians who doubt the efficacy of the concept duo i+d (commonly or not-so-commonly known as ID) and its associated theories and social-political movement (mainly) in the USA. Fine, join the advocacy parade if it entices you. I'm a telic thinker too!
Still, I wonder how the TT group would psycho-analyze the situation if Ken Miller had instead written/spoken that the "creator of intelligent design theory is not very intelligent." (Is that what you meant Steve, since you are trying to build a new religion, whose originator would not be God, the Creator, Maker of Heaven and Earth or the Trinitarian theology which has spread around the world?) This way you/they would have to assess the "˜intelligence' of the individuals/group who actually coined the phrase "˜intelligent design' (all Christians, without exception, coined the term 'ID'), questioning whether their phraseology contains such explanatory power (i+d) as TT's give it. Such a task may not be so easy or at least less comfortable to do than to criticize Dr. K. Miller for his critiques of ID, critiques which apparently many TE's and EC's support, Drs. Peacocke, Polkinghorne, Lamoureux, Morton, Isaac, van Till and others to name a decorated few.
Theme of this Thread: Dissent.
Target of attack: Ken Miller.
Charge: Obviously the man has no business calling himself a scientist since he rejects the "˜science' of ID. (LOL "“ a PhD in _____ but not a scientist. What is American academia coming to?)
Reason: His theological disagreements with i+d theories do not float together with TT's non-theological teleologics. Plus, his eloquence and dialectic are sometimes confused with his slips-of-the-tongue or slippery philosophy.
Btw, Touche (indeed!) for Mike Gene's Sept 26th 21:09 post. LOL "“ such posts make me wonder if MG should have been a professional polemicist or scientific revolutionary rather than a private-lab researcher and internet ___ _____ in his spare time! By all means, bring someone to account for their corkscrewed or self-contradictory words. Bravo, ex-Canadian friend of American Evangelists parading a scientific revolution (if not officially, for the ringleaders of the Big Tent – BT) in the name of science and/or theology!
Still MG's commentary does not negate the fact that i+d theories are welcomed (if they are) by people of various political, social, cultural and religious persuasions (BT theory), such that a social anarchist (cf. EAM-ID), cultural/theological agnostics and religious fundamentalists can share the same pseudo-universalist pragmatic, neo-positivist theory. Only an American audience could buy into such paradoxical pseudo-spiritual produce and still reserve the right to call it "˜science.' No Child Should Be Left Behind Such a hot-button issue!
Please explain what you meant by this intriguing statement. How is Miller, a theist, using a philosophical argument, as a "˜practising' natural scientist, against theism?
Cheers,
Arago
p.s. (because it was written after what's above)
Yes, this is ridiculously myopic! Evolution is a monster, likely a personal (e.g. anti-theological) monster in this person's mind!
First, "˜irreducible complexity' (IC) is a philosophical concept coined by a Catholic Christian Biologist. Linguistics is very important here. 'Irreducibility' conceptions have been floating around for years. There are philosophies based upon it. Behe was not original here, except that he's a biologist (who read and was seduced by M. Denton). Philosophers are well ahead of IC in natural science. Ask Dr. Behe about Wolfram's "˜irreducible computation' and you'll get the impression that his silence is not a function of wise reluctance to share premises. "˜Hard lab work' (as a proof of universalistic claims in the name of Science) is oohhh sooo "˜modernistic.' Welcome to the post-modern world DonaldM! It isn't so scary, and certainly is not 'under the bed.'
Second, "˜evolution' is much, much, much more than about mere chance and necessity (i.e. 'the only tools'). It is much bigger than C. Darwin. The irony here (since I'm not attacking the person of DonaldM, but rather his perspective) is I'm actually in the process of fighting evolution in my own disciplines, while I watch IDists hack and stab at what they don't even know is behind their bad dreams. It's not Freud or Marx, unbeknownst to them, haunting their repatriated-Paleyian theory + information age. Darwin is far more 'innocent' than IDists have made him out to be.
Take for example, "˜Mike Gene,' who is a product of the "˜direct action' of the/his environment. If y'all can't see this then you're like fish trying to describe the water. Likely, many of you know what I mean, even if you won't acknowlege it.
Comment by g arago — September 28, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
the only tools available to evolution – DonaldM
Comment by g arago — September 28, 2005 @ 4:15 pm