Ken Miller - The Man In The Muddle
by DeuceKenneth Miller has published an open letter, which Bill Dembski has put online here. The part that caught my eye was this:
Many of you accused me of "mocking God" for pointing out that remarkable frequency of extinction would make an "intelligent designer" look ridiculous. In fact, it was exactly because I do not mock God that I pointed out how ridiculous this view of an "intelligent designer" would be.
Now, I wouldn't accuse Miller of "mocking God", and whether the frequency of extinction makes an "intelligent designer" look ridiculous is a debate for some other time. I wish simply to examine what Miller is here arguing. This goes beyond simply arguing against the idea that intelligence can be detectable. The implication of the argument (if one accepts it as valid) is that neither evolution itself nor its outcomes were intended in any sense, even indirectly by setting up physical laws to do the job (as Steve pointed out here), because the person intending it wouldn't be very intelligent for doing it that way.
That is to say, Miller is once again arguing that evolution is "without plan or purpose," something he has stated elsewhere is a philosophical claim rather than a scientific one, and one which he repudiated when responding to Cardinal Schönborn and had removed from his own textbook.
Now, of course, Miller is entitled to hold whichever opinion he wants on this, but it would be nice if he would choose one and stick to it, especially when testifying in court. Regardless of where you stand on the topic, isn't it time for a little intellectual integrity on the part of Ken Miller?
September 29th, 2005 at 10:34 am
I don't think Miller implies what you claim he is implying at all. What he is implying is that if the ID sat down to directly design a species, and he was God, one would expect that species to be virtually perfect and built to last. OTOH, if God designed a universe in which life evolves with the intent that it would eventually lead to man, one would expect species to go extinct as part of the process. Part of the problem is that IDism is such a vague and slippery concept that its hard to say anything about it definitively, and when one delves into theology, as Miller is here (what would one expect to see in a species designed by God?), its easy to sink into a morass. It would probably be better for him to stick to the scientific evidence, which is more than enough to demonstrate the power of evolutionary theory and the vacuity of the notion of IDism.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 29, 2005 @ 10:34 am
September 29th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
So, if God designed the species directly, then they would never go extinct, but if the tool of God's design was evolution, then extinction is part of the design. So God's design is evidenced by either non-extinction or extinction, depending, I guess. Wow!
You may perhaps be familiar with the term "planned obsolescence" If human designers use planned obsolescence in their design schemes, why shouldn't God? On what grounds does Miller (of for that metter Aagcobb) "know" that God would never design something to go extinct? Is there a scientific test for this hypothesis? If so, how do we test it? Has Miller conducted this test? If so, in which peer reviewed scientific journal did he report his findings? Or is it just Miller's (and perhaps Aagcobb's) theological notion, with little or nothing to substantiate it?
If Miller properly understood Catholic doctrine related to the creation, he would know that God did, in fact, create all things "good". Whether or not that implies non-extinction is not at all clear, but let's assume for the moment that it does. So what? There's also the doctrine of THe Falll, in which the good and perfect intentions of God are thrwarted by the free choice of humankind. In other words, evil, death and destruction enter Eden. But, as all that is a theological discussion unsuited for this forum, we'll have to leave it there. The point is that neither Miller nor Aagcobb has any scientific basis for their claims about what God would or would not have done or how he would have designed things. The claim is purely theological, and not a very orthodox one at that.
Comment by DonaldM — September 29, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I agree, the claim is purely theological, nor was I attempting to defend Miller's theological claim. I'm just pointing out that its not the claim that evolution is without plan or purpose, which is how Deuce was interpreting it.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 29, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Hi Deuce,
Miller's reply is a non-answer, like those offered by slick politicians every day: "Some people claim I've mocked God. However, this claim is wrong because I didn't mock God."
The question Miller needs to provide an answer to is this: "What is to prevent an atheist from arguing that God would never have used such a sloppy mechanism as evolution, which leads to all those extinctions?"
Comment by Krauze — September 29, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Aren't most extinctions due to catastrophic events, and not to unfitness?
Comment by onething — September 29, 2005 @ 11:45 pm