Miller's Selective Concern
by MikeGeneKen Miller recently wrote an essay in response to Cardinal Schönborn's piece in the New York Times.
Miller writes:
Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the "meaning" on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the "mainstream biologists" of which the Cardinal speaks?
Miller answers, "Not at all." Really?
So how does this scientist back up a sociological claim (the views of "mainstream biologists")? With a single quote from one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. That's it. That's his scientific evidence. He gives us no reason to think the "many evolutionists" whose popular writings endorse this expression of neo-Darwinism are not "mainstream biologists." He gives us no definition of a "mainstream biologist." And, most importantly, he gives us no survey data about these "mainstream biologists" to support his assertion. In other words, he abandons the scientific approach in order to make his case.
Since Miller has only an anecdote to support his point, let's balance it with something that is more up to date. Recently, sociobiologist David Barash's anti-ID article was widely circulated in the press and widely discussed in the blogosphere.
How does Barash define things?
The point is that these and other incongruities testify to the contingent, unplanned, entirely natural nature of natural selection. We are profoundly imperfect, cobbled together rather then designed. And in these imperfections reside some of the best arguments for our equally profound natural-ness.
Wait a minute. Let's compare:
The Cardinal: ideology proposing that an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection"
The Scientist: these and other incongruities testify to the contingent, unplanned, entirely natural nature of natural selection.
The Cardinal speaks and Miller is Johnny-On-The-Spot.
The Scientist speaks and Miller is taking a nap.
Yet they said the same thing. Go figure.
BTW, can someone point out where a "mainstream biologist" has cleaned up Barash's mess?
July 27th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
I've discussed this on ARN before Creationism's Trojan Horse from Darwinists. Here is a quote from Miller:
Miller is not even able to keep his own story straight. What other naturalistic process does he propose other than RM&NS? Darwinists are the ones who are engaged in market repackagng to make it less offensive and believable.
Comment by teleologist — July 27, 2005 @ 3:34 pm