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!

"it's a philosophical argument against theism" "“ Deuce

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)

"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." "“ DonaldM (bolding mine)

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.

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?"

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."

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.

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.)

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?

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?

Thank you for this thread. This is getting even better. Miller Confesses to being a Creationist

Darwinist Kenneth Miller conceded that in one sense he was a creationist, since he attributed the laws of physics and chemistry to an "author of all things, seen and unseen."

Perhaps a new thread is in order for his second day of testimony under cross examination?

Salvador

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.

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.

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?