Kenneth Miller on Intelligent Design

In the "Bible" thread, Kevn has suggested that we move the sub-topic of Evolution vs. I.D. to another thread. I think it's a good idea, provided we can carry on a discussion on the facts and merits of the arguments rather than engage in personal jabs.

I'm not really concerned with whether it's been discussed before - every board I frequent has had its Evolution debates and flamewars over and over. Once in a while (one might say in a Natural Selection kind of way ) everyone learns something.

My own position is this: The "Intelligent Design" movement is nothing more than the old Creationism in new clothes, regrouping after having received setback after setback over the decades until not even old Young Earth Creationists like Duane Gish take to the field of battle any more. They've had to re-invent themselves in their efforts to assert their religious meme into the public classroom disguised as science.

My favorite source in these discussions is Kenneth R. Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and is also, coincidentally, a Christian. His book disputes with eloquence the notion that Evolution is an atheist plot or that it denies the existence of God. It contradicts the Bible, certainly, but that's not the same thing as denying God. In fact, The Theory of Evolution says nothing about God or the beginnings of Life or abiogenesis (life from non-life). It says very simply: "Gene pools change over time". Those changes in the gene pool give us micro-evolution, which over enough millions of years becomes macro-evolution.

On the topic of I.D., Miller says in his book:

More specifically, Miller rebuts the basic working premise of I.D. very effectively with this quote:


Answer that question, if you can. It would be a reasonable first step to showing I.D. as something more than a sham being perpetrated on honest Christians.

Can I be the first to say, good luck, we're all counting on you

For those who didn't read the meat of the decision handed down by Judge John Jones III, Federal court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the case of Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District, the following text is very succinct on this issue and well reflects the evidence offered by both sides in that case:



Pwnd!

OK, before we begin, I should point out I have no issue with micro-evolution, I believe it happens. In fact, I would say it's well documented to be a fact.

However, when we are talking about evolution one must separate what we know to be fact, and what is surmised by inference.

Micro-evolution is fact, it has been observed. I know many will say macro-evolution is fact and can be tested etc. This is where the controversy takes place.

Another issue, when talking about evolution, we must not assume life evolved from non-living matter, as that would be abiogenesis, and as you already stated, it has nothing at all to do with evolution. But that is a major misunderstanding I see in the typical debate.

Now, to discuss what we disagree on, macro-evolution, it's my opinion (along with the opinion of many great scientists) that macro-evolution is not factual, rather it's a theory surmised from the fact animals naturally adapt. It has become a religious tenet to many, because it's the only option other than a Creator, and that's not an option to many.

Adaptation isn't in question, in fact, it's accepted to be another example of the perfection of God's creation. Just as life self-replicates and self-heals, adaptation is evidence of the creator rather than evidence that changes were made by fluke errors to the DNA. But adaptation isn't macro-evolution either, as it never results in a new creature.

I have hundreds of sources that agree with my opinion, mostly scientists/biologists etc. We can compare our sources all day, but I doubt you will accept my sources due to the fact they have a belief system. Everyone has a belief system. Even atheists believe there is no God, which is a belief system in itself.

What options do atheists have when it comes to origins? Must they accept evolution? Or do they have other options? Therefore, when an atheist discusses evolution, they must assume it is factual. They have no other option.

Christians can choice either, evolution doesn't say anything about a creator. Unless one is talking about abiogenesis.

My point is it's a requirement to believe in evolution if one in an atheist. It's hard not to be biased from the perspective of an atheist. But you know there are many Christians who can and do believe in evolution. That's why Christians can look at the issue objectively.

Yes, and at one time judges ruled women are property and blacks are only partially human. I wouldn't put much stock in the opinion of a judge who was a lawyer before being selected by a politician.

Speaking of gods perfection in creation... What's my appendix good for again? Oh yea... absolutely nothing and I have an ugly scar where they took out my appendix to prove it.
What use is my coccyx again? And while we are at it, "hey god, wtf is with PMS?!?!!!"

Briana Dawson

Don't you know it's punishment for being a woman?

Oh, so you mean that which can be observed within a puny human lifetime you'll accept, but that which takes longer than that must be false.

Typical.

What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?
Ross Rowland
Great Falls, Va.


Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

"How can anyone state that the coccyx is vestigial when all bones function the same way the tailbone does? According to the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health, the skeletal system’s function is to: give support and structure to the body, protect delicate internal organs, make movement possible, attach with muscles, and many others (Miller, 1139). Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what the coccyx is exactly doing? If the categories that automatically exclude any bones from being designated as vestigial are similar to the ones stated above, the coccyx, therefore, should not be considered rudimentary."

http://www.geocities.com/gcalla1/coccyx.htm

There are lists and lists that show every part we thought was useless is useful. This is a non-issue.

I think we should have a 'How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?' thread.

If it *still* hasn't got through to you that a lack of belief is not a belief, then I really wonder why you expect your opinions to be taken seriously.

This is why women were considered property:

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

As for ID, if you want to start teaching it in schools, then be prepared to add another 4 years to our children's educational experience to include religious study for all faiths. Hmmm... I wonder how wide your eyes would be if they start teaching Pagan traditions in school.

Keep religion out of the classroom. Keep it in the home, keep it in your heart, keep it in church... but keep your beliefs away from innocent children.

It's not lack of belief. It's the belief there is no God. It's the belief everything is here without cause.

Nicely done.

I live in Oak Ridge, TN. As such, nuclear physicists are as common here as rain. I was speaking with one of them, the father of a friend of mine, and I liked the way he put it.

He said that intelligent design made sense to him, because he looked around and at his science and came to the understanding that someone must have come up with the idea. Really, the only tenet of I.D. being that there was an intelligent designer.

But he also regarded evolution as factual. He considers that faith can tell you who, and maybe why, but that it is up to Science to discover "how". So his thought is that God intelligently designed life through the evolutionary process. A thought that is congruous with my own, by incident.

It's really an apples/oranges argument. Anyone bringing the Bible into it should admit that they aren't talking about I.D., they're talking about Creationism.

That's fine, but it's going to make the remainder of your position extremely difficult to hang onto, if not untenable.


The same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution from causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, your argument against macroevolution isn't going to hold any logical water I'm afraid.

The fossil record also argues against your position -- we have abundant examples of intermediate species which support the link between, for example, reptiles and birds. Or fish and mammals. Or cats and dogs. Those who bicker over the difference between micro-and macro-evolution must by definition explain the existence of the Archaeopteryx -- part dinosaur, part bird. Or the Haasiophis terrasanctus, a marine snake with hind legs. The data in the fossil record is always a troublesome obstacle for I.D.ers.

Dr. Edward Max wrote:

Would you not say that chimps and humans are clearly individual, identifiable species? If not, how do you explain the amazingly similar genetic structure they share? How else could this have occurred other than as the result of millions of years of micro evolution culminating in a macroevolutionary view we have now, looking back over the eons?


One, this isn't a binary question with "yes" or "no" answers. If you can line up the skulls of elephants over 9 million years of evolution and show a clear progression from one to the next to the next, what other conclusion can you reasonably draw than that modern elephants are a macro-evolutionary outcome when compared to the original mammals?

Furthermore, I would ask you not to fall into the trap of beginning to claim that Evolution has anything to do with a "religious tenet" - it is Science, and as such the Theory has withstood 147 years of debate, discoveries and research and nothing to date has seriously called its validity into question. It has changed slightly based on evidence, yes, but those changes have only made it more difficult than ever to cling to the ancient notion of Divine Intervention as a tenable hypothesis (for example, the Genome Project has supported Darwin, even though Darwin had no knowledge of genetics). When/if the day arrives that new evidence is uncovered and a new theory advanced which explains that evidence better than the ToE, then Evolution will be replaced and not before. I.D. isn't even close to doing that job.


Again, this is not a binary question. I personally do not require a Creator to explain Life. You do. But somewhere in between us, it is equally valid for both us to accept the evidence regarding adaptation and natural selection. You might propose, for example, that Evolution is God's brilliant engine conceived to propogate Life and ensure its survival. I might consider that to be a specious premise, but I cannot argue with your accepting the same evidence leading to a similar conclusion as me.


I'd be interested in seeing those sources. None of the sources I've seen to date were (a) biologists (which would give them a bit more traction in their knowledge of the field); (b) Offered testable theories (more often just personal opinion); (c) Understood what they were proposing (see Michael Behe, whos "black box" idea has been dismantled very thoroughly by the biology community). Submitting an argument from authority without naming any authorities to back yourself up isn't going to help you.


It's one thing to have a belief system. It's quite another to allow that belief system to blind one to data and evidence of such volume as that which supports Evolution.


You're always very quick to stick us into your convenient little boxes, Kevn, but it's not that simple. Some atheists are also nihilists. Some are merely non-religious yet remain spiritual in other ways. Some are more agnostic on the notion of evolution. Others, like me, were atheists long before we investigated Evolution. You don't have to be an atheist to accept Evolution, any more than accepting Evolution makes you an atheist. They are unrelated concepts, let's get that straight before you continue down that off-track line of thinking, shall we? Atheism has nothing NOTHING to do with this.


Is that supposed to be some kind of a condemnation of atheism? Is the world really that black/white and simple to you? Many Christians do, yes, as do many non-believers including atheists. Unfortunately, there is a large and vocal minority of fundamentalist Christians led by Phillip Johnson and William Dembski who are trotting out all kinds of nonsense in their efforts to destroy the very foundation of Modern Biology. That is why I have so much admiration for people like Kenneth Miller, who can be both a Christian and a scientist and sees no conflict between the two.

The advantage for me of not believing in your god is that I don't have a horse in this race as long as I have a reasonable theory which offers verifiable explanations. If someone develops a Theory of Watermelons which explains the fossil record better than Evolution, I'm ready to look at it and possibly accept it while fundamentalists are still back on Page One, trying to figure out how the Book of Genesis could be so utterly wrong. My only criteria is "evidence", not which version of the Bible the theory supports.

It's basically semantics.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any God. THat is with the understanding that it is not the default state of being to believe in God. If it were the default state of being to believe in a higher power, then your argument that it is the belief there is no god might hold water. However, the fact is that the human mind does not initially have a divine concept, therefore atheism is a null value; a lack of belief.

0 has no value.

Notice he said "along with many great scientists" without citing any of them. That's called a logic patch. It's what you put in place when you have a hole in your argument that you can't cover with citation.

The verse from Genesis is the punishment Eve brought on, for her part in the garden incident. Everyone was punished including Adam and the serpent. It surely isn't an effort to make women property.

The verse from Paul were customary laws of the day.

They do teach pagan traditions in school. It doesn't bother me at all. Why should it?

I'm not afraid of giving children information and letting them decide what is true.

A few of the scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

Thanks for the names. I'm off to Google everyone up. And if any of them think Pat Roberson is a neat guy, we can go ahead and count them discredited.

The default is common sense. Common sense says a perfect system requires intelligent design. If I find a machine I have never seen, I do not assume it evolved. The default assumption is it was created to function as it does. It would take faith to assume it evolved.

We can discredit anyone with a belief system, so no one can be heard.

But yet you'll swallow whole the nonsense another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, has been spewing.

The only problem with your dismissal is that this has been the same result virtually every time I.D. has gone to court. And before them, their Creationist cousins. It's not just this judge. It's virtually every judge so far who has heard all of the evidence from both sides:

McLean vs Arkansas, 1982
Edwards vs. Aguilard, 1987
Peloza vs Capistrano Unified School Dist. 1993
Daniel vs. Waters, 1975
Wright vs. Houstin I.S.D. 1972
Selman vs. Cobb County School Dist. 2005

I note that you didn't have any response to the details of the judge's decision. I'll make my own assumptions as to why, until you can offer them.

Does a court ruling on whether ID can be taught in school give you assurances that evolution is truth?

Actually the default assumption is that it exists. That assumption is the product of initial sensory stimulation and reception. The creation and events that lead to its presence only come on behest of complex thought. Common sense is entirely relative and subjective, and as we are addressing absolutes, common sense is irrelevant.

In regards to my Pat Roberson comment, it's not about whether or not someone has faith. I simply cannot consider Pat's allies credible experts on a theoretically opposing school of thought, much as I couldn't consider Hitler's allies as credible experts on humanitarianism.