Kenneth Miller on Intelligent Design

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

Pandas was published in 1989, and it has been hailed by ID advocates as “the first intelligent design textbook” and “one of the milestones” of the early ID movement. In NCSE’s enormous archive was a file of correspondence concerning this book, including a cache of seemingly random things people had sent them over the years. Jessica Moran, the NCSE archivist, reviewed this file and found a 1987 prospectus for an early version of this book, then to be called Biology and Origins, that had been sent by the owners of the book, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), to the publishing company Bartlett and Jones encouraging them to publish the book. That document referred explicitly to “creation,” not “intelligent design.” They also had numerous fundraising letters that had been sent out by FTE referring to this book as supporting “creation.” She gave these documents to Nick Matzke, NCSE’s point man working directly with the attorneys, and the search was on for more.

Matzke began to speculate that perhaps there might be language in the earlier version of Pandas that used creation science terminology rather than the more legally sophisticated terminology favored by ID advocates today. In an email to the Pepper Hamilton attorneys, Matzke wrote, “I am reasonably sure that the word ‘creation’ would be substituted for ‘design’ or ‘intelligent design’ at many points within that manuscript. This would prove our point in many ways. We have a couple written sources indicating that picking the words ‘intelligent design’ was one of the very last things that Charles Thaxton did during the development of Pandas.” Thaxton was the academic editor of Pandas. But did that manuscript still exist? If indeed it did refer to creationism or creation science rather than to intelligent design, one would think that the FTE would have destroyed it long ago. The attorneys decided to take a shot and subpoena any early drafts of the book that FTE might have. This turned out to be a key turning point in the case.

mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University

and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

.......................

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.

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

Don't muddy the issue. The court decisions assure us that Intelligent Design is a religious meme and not science. It's no more complicated than that.

Remember, ID refers to abiogenesis, not evolution. As it concerns origins, not evolution. That's why I said I see this crop up in every Evolution debate. There is a misunderstanding of the terms.

..............
Doesn't matter if they knew Pat or not, they're all debunked by motive, action, or both.

What is the judges scientific background for making such a claim? Is he saying there is no controversy? Is he saying children can't be trusted to examine the possibilities of ID?

Remember, ID refers to abiogenesis, not evolution. As it concerns origins, not evolution. That's why I said I see this crop up in every Evolution debate. There is a misunderstanding of the terms.

.....................

Technically, I.D. doesn't even refer to abiogenesis until it smacks into Christian rhetoric. It refers to causality of genesis itself, very different.

I really hope you find an "authority" whose credibility hasn't been coopted yet by the Discovery Institute. If you wonder why that's an issue, I'll be happy to explain it.

Let's look at the Discovery Institute fellows and advisors (summarized from wikipedia and other sources)

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. - major funder of the institute. He funded the magazine Chalcedon Report, which carried an article calling for homesexuals to be stoned. He's a Christian Reconstructionist (read up on it. Scary shit). No science credentials or degrees.

Francis J. Beckwith - President-elect of the Evangelical Theological Society, associate director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and associate professor of church-state studies at Baylor University. No science credentials or degrees.

Michael J. Behe - Author of the now infamous "Of Pandas and People." On the stand in the Dover case he was forced to admit that under the definition he's using to claim ID is science, Astrology would also qualify.

Bruce Chapman - Founder of the institute. No scientific credentials or degrees. He was also a fellow at the Hudson Institute which has among its mission statements "respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs"

William Lane Craig - philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He is a prolific author and lecturer on a wide range of issues related to the philosophy of religion, the historical Jesus, and the coherence of the Christian worldview. No scientific credentials or degrees.

William A. Dembski - mathematician, philosopher, theologian and neo-creationist. In 1999 he was invited to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor by Robert Sloan. Dembski taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp. "The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning."

"Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been levelled at Dembski's Design Inference. However, Dembski claims that the book has in fact been peer reviewed. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski's argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which ID stakes its claim. The book's content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski's "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies."

George Gilder - co-founder of the institute, prominent antifeminist. No scientific credentials or degrees. "During the bubble years of the late 1990s, critics accused Gilder of "front running"; purchasing stocks in little known companies and before using his media influence to drive up their prices, then dumping them on the market. In practice it is difficult to prove or disprove such accusations. In Gilder's case, the practice would not be illegal, since he was not a licensed broker or analyst. Many if not most of the compainies lauded by Gilder in his "Gilder Report" went bankrupt in the post 2000 Nasdaq meltdown. Gilder later claimed that he saw the Nasdaq meltdown coming, however he never shared this insight with his subscribers at the time, and his personal investment losses do not speak well of his prescience." Not sure what any of that has to do with biology or the sciences, but interesting nonetheless.

Phillip E. Johnson - considered the father of the ID movement. He came up with the "wedge strategy" which seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution and supplant it with ID. Author of Darwin on Trial. Stephen Gould's review in Scientific American called the book "full of errors, badly argued, based on false criteria, and abysmally written."

Stephen C. Meyer - philospher of science, theologian. "On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer, appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID."

J.P. Moreland - Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher. He holds a PhD in philosophy. No scientific credentials or degrees.

Paul Nelson - grandson of the creationist autor Byron Nelson. Young earth creationist. Edited the book "Creationist Writings of Byron C. Nelson." PhD in philosphy. No scientific credentials or degrees.

Scott Minnich - associate professor of microbiology at U of Idaho. Finally someone with relevant credentials! He's a proponent of "irreducible complexity" which as has been pointed out over and over again has no real scientific merit since it's not falsifiable. He's also been involved in research regarding the Shroud of Turin. He was an expert witness in the Dover trial. " the defense asserted that intelligent design is rooted in science, frequently citing Dr. Michael Behe's work. In what often sounded like an advanced biology course, expert witness Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, said that, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." Defense witness Dr. Scott Minnich conceded as much. When testifying about how it was a risk in his field to come out as an intelligent design proponent, Pepper Hamilton attorney Steve Harvey replied, "That's because the entire scientific community rejects intelligent design, doesn't it?" Minnich answered, "That's correct."

George Weigel - Adjunct fellow at DI. Author and Roman Catholic theologian. Here are some of the books he's written: The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II, The Final Revolution: The Resistance Church and the Collapse of Communism, Cathlolicism and the Renewal of American Democracy, among others. Weigel was president of the James Madison Foundation, and a principal at the Pueblo Institute during the Reagan administration both of which were used to launder money that went to the contras as part of the Iran/Contra scandal. No scientific credentials or degrees.

John Corrigan Wells - The only other person with a degree in biology. He also holds a doctorate in theology. He's also, interestingly enough, a Moonie. Here's an interesting response from the National Center for Science Education to his "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher" that makes an interesting read.

Fine, ignore their facts. I don't expect you to accept anyone who disagrees with the religion of evolution.

Now.... What evidence can you show that proves evolution (the idea all life originated from a single life form)?

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.

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.

What is the judges scientific background for making such a claim? Is he saying there is no controversy? Is he saying children can't be trusted to examine the possibilities of ID?

Remember, ID refers to abiogenesis, not evolution. As it concerns origins, not evolution. That's why I said I see this crop up in every Evolution debate. There is a misunderstanding of the terms.

By "teaching Pagan traditions" Kevn is referring to Hallowe'en (which is actually celebrated in more of its Catholic iteration, the "harvest festival" that many Christians have as an alternative is the actual original Pagan festival), the bunny and eggs and colors of Easter, probably Xmas trees (from Candlemas), and the occasional Maypole.

Evolution is a religion? When did this happen? If your credibility wasn't in question before, you're coming off as ignorant now.

I consider Microevolution valid evidence. I also see the fact that the human 5th finger is becoming more and more vestigal, the occurrance of tails on human children, the receding human hairline and thinning of hair of both sexes, the steadily increasing average height of a human being, spare ribs, wisdom teeth, sinus cavities, and many other observable biological traits that have changed over time as perfectly valid evidence.

Can you prove Creationism?

Negative athiests are the most common type, and your statement applies to them. A negative athiest's view can be summed up as "I don't believe god exists"

Seperation of Church and State. No need to make a scientific determination, ID is a religious concept. And a bad one at that. It's scientology mixed with creationism.

More commonly known as weak atheism and strong atheism, and you are correct.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state found within the constitution or bill of rights. No state run church, yes, no laws prohibiting religious expression, yes... but no separation of church and state anywhere.

Yeah, I don't like those terms as well... It's why I invented my own

How does any of that prove all life came from a single life form? As I said, adaptation, if it is actually happening, isn't macro-evolution, because no new animal is being formed to replace another.

There is no need to prove Creationism, only to falsify evolution.

I'm pretty much fine with just "atheist" and think strong and weak, postivie and negative, and most especially "agnostic" should be dropped from the lexicon. None of them believe so all of them are without theism. No need to split hairs. Or maybe replace all three with more accurate labels. Rational atheist, irrational atheist, and atheist in denial.