For years I've wondered how Ken Miller is able to live with himself as he spreads misinformation about Intelligent Design all over the country. I've been to one of his lectures that was scheduled here in Kansas a few years ago. The rhetoric was laughable, but very persuasive for those who haven't done their homework. For a time, I had hope that Miller wasn't deliberately spreading misinformation...perhaps he just wasn't listening when ID supporters rightly corrected him? But, I've keep up with his performances since the lecture I attended, and he never changes his tune even though there is no doubt whatsoever that he is aware of the truth.
Casey Luskin has written a series of posts at EN&V that address Miller's vast array of deceit. The articles can be found here: Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller.
If you ever have the chance to attend one of Miller's lectures, be sure to take this lecture guide along with you, and share the link with those around you so they are better equipped to be objective about design rather than completely disregard it due to Miller's rhetoric.
Showing posts with label Ken Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Miller. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Ken Miller initiates the Battle for America's "Soul"
Evidently, it's no longer about science...it's about religion and the battle between IDists and theistic evolutionists for America's soul. Bear in mind that this cry for "battle" is coming from a theistic evolutionist...not an ID supporter. Ken Miller states that he is a Christian who believes that God's chosen method of creating life on planet earth was through the process of common descent. Miller is highly opposed to ID, so either he rejects the notion that God had any involvement in the process of creation after initiating the big bang, or he believes God steps in, but that His hand in the process is completely undetectable. In fact, according to his previous book, Darwin's God, he stated that he believes God is "scientifically undetectable".
Miller has written several biology textbooks, and here are a few quotes from them in regard to evolution...
Sounds like evolution = philosophical naturalism, no? Yet, Miller is a Christian who believes that ID has no place in academia, that his own philosophy about the origin of life is the correct view for Christians to take, and that ID is counter productive to Christianity...go figure.
According to Michael Behe, Miller's book doesn't offer anything new in regard to the scientific issues in this debate, and if you've read Darwin's God, you'll already be quite familiar with the content of his new book.
It appears that the focus of Miller's new book is on philosophy rather than science. I've read Darwin's God and I've also read The Edge of Evolution. When comparing the two, Miller's book was a fast read...the science was minimal, and it sounds like his new book is a repeat of the same. But, when reading Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution, I found that he concentrated almost entirely on the scientific issues in this debate. Parts of it were quite challenging for the layperson.
Theistic evolutionists claim that ID is nothing but an attempt to squeeze religion into the science classrooms, but when considering the content of Miller's last two books on the topic, he doesn't come across as well versed in the scientific discussions surrounding this debate as Michael Behe does.
If you really want to understand intelligent design, Miller is not the one to turn to. I lost respect for the man quite some time ago after attending a lecture where he blatantly misrepresented what happened here in Kansas in regard to the science standards fiasco of 2005. Since then Evolution News and View has reported on so many of his blunders that it's difficult to believe much of anything that comes out of his mouth.
If you want the honest scoop on Intelligent Design, the better bet would be to pick up a copy of William Dembski's new book, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language
Miller has written several biology textbooks, and here are a few quotes from them in regard to evolution...
(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)
(2) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152
Sounds like evolution = philosophical naturalism, no? Yet, Miller is a Christian who believes that ID has no place in academia, that his own philosophy about the origin of life is the correct view for Christians to take, and that ID is counter productive to Christianity...go figure.
According to Michael Behe, Miller's book doesn't offer anything new in regard to the scientific issues in this debate, and if you've read Darwin's God, you'll already be quite familiar with the content of his new book.
It appears that the focus of Miller's new book is on philosophy rather than science. I've read Darwin's God and I've also read The Edge of Evolution. When comparing the two, Miller's book was a fast read...the science was minimal, and it sounds like his new book is a repeat of the same. But, when reading Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution, I found that he concentrated almost entirely on the scientific issues in this debate. Parts of it were quite challenging for the layperson.
Theistic evolutionists claim that ID is nothing but an attempt to squeeze religion into the science classrooms, but when considering the content of Miller's last two books on the topic, he doesn't come across as well versed in the scientific discussions surrounding this debate as Michael Behe does.
If you really want to understand intelligent design, Miller is not the one to turn to. I lost respect for the man quite some time ago after attending a lecture where he blatantly misrepresented what happened here in Kansas in regard to the science standards fiasco of 2005. Since then Evolution News and View has reported on so many of his blunders that it's difficult to believe much of anything that comes out of his mouth.
If you want the honest scoop on Intelligent Design, the better bet would be to pick up a copy of William Dembski's new book, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Miller Plays with his Mouse Trap
[Repost]
Michael Behe's response to Miller's blather...
"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?
"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!"
"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."
...
"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that."
"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.
"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."
(248-249)
HT: Frank
Michael Behe's response to Miller's blather...
"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?
"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!"
"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."
...
"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that."
"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.
"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."
(248-249)
HT: Frank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)