4 Responses to “The Ken Miller Show”

1. MikeGene Says:
   January 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 pm

   Anyone see this?

Comment by MikeGene — January 3, 2006 @ 10:49 pm

2. Ken Says:
   January 4th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

   I watched it, Mike. I missed the first 20 minutes but found it interesting, if misguided. I thought it especially ironic that the FSM came up right after your post on the topic, and agree that his claim that ID puts "everything" at stake was ridiculous.

   I don't quite get Ken Miller; Finding Darwin's God was a really well written and thoughtful book, with some valid criticisms of those brands of ID that immediately equate RM/NS with atheism (he also offers the most succinct and devastating critique of garden variety creationism I've read). But he seems completely unaware of how his ideas about God subtly guiding evolution (though quantum indeterminacy?) brings him much closer to Dembski than to the Darwinists (like Gould and Sagan) that he praises. What gives?

   By the way: this is my first comment, but I've been reading your blog since the beginning and have always found it a welcome alternative perspective on ID. Particularly when it comes to the political aspects of this debate, you guys make the DI seem downright sophomoric.

   Keep up the good work!

Comment by Ken — January 4, 2006 @ 7:04 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   January 5th, 2006 at 1:19 pm

   Ken,

   Thanks for the comments.

   I should point out that my commentary on "the political aspects of this debate" is largely about self-defense. I see an environment where the majority of critics come to this issue with their stereotypes firmly in hand and are trying to entrench and spread those stereotypes so that anyone who takes ID seriously will be perceived as being stupid, dishonest, or deluded. You'll note that I do not go around accusing ID critics of being evil, stupid, ignorant, deluded, or dishonest; I simply correct the claims they make because those claims help to shape the social world I have to live in. If they end up looking bad, it's usually because they are relying on stereotypes and emotions rather than critical thinking.

   I talk about this more here.

Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

4. Ken Says:
   January 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

   I should point out that my commentary on "the political aspects of this debate" is largely about self-defense…. You'll note that I do not go around accusing ID critics of being evil, stupid, ignorant, deluded, or dishonest; I simply correct the claims they make because those claims help to shape the social world I have to live in.

   That's exactly what I appreciate. The most frustrating thing about following this debate is that too few people (on either side) are willing to take that high road. Everyone says they are calm, collected and objective, but few live up to it. Everyone says that it's all their opponents who are disingenuous, slanderous and illogical, but few are willing to restrain themselves from responding in kind. It's just so much easier to pigeon-hole than to engage someone's arguements, eh?

   But I have found that you do live up to that standard (as do most of the regular posters here). And that, more than anything else, has kept me coming back.

   Perhaps I should have said: "you're refusal to endorse the (largely vacious and distracting) political aspects of this debate" is what makes you stand apart.

Comment by Ken — January 5, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.