I've read Miller's book, and didn't think it refuted Behe. but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
It's true that Behe, even within his own department, is thought of as a crank, as are all IDers. But when his book came out, several reputable and well known scientists admitted he was on to something because at the time the literature on prebiotic molecular evolution was pretty scarce. I remember grilling my roommate at the time, a Ukrainian biochemist, and he agreed this was the case, and although I know Moran and others would dispute it, I believe him because, being an atheist and an expert, he had no dog in the fight.
So, I consider Behe's negative criticisms to at least have had demonstrated positive value. Dembski's work also has had value, taken purely as an aspect of probability theory in philosophy.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
What hurts scientific aptitude is a lack of imagination and skill when it comes to thinking of and setting up experiments, inumeracy, etc. Right?
Since there's no proof in science, there's also no definitive refutation, science does however, try to suggest the best bet with the hand dealt, and that ain't a theory that things that exist are unachievable barring a miracle. That has been a losing bet in science every single time it's been tried.
but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
Miller is one of the authors of the commmonest undergrad intro to biology texts. It will come as big news to many that he is about to be drummed out of the club.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
And maybe there's a reason for that.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
Well, in what scientific institute does this reasoning prevail? Most of the scientists I know entertain some mild form of creationism, ID, or at least panspermia, and I don't see them ducking for cover. It's just that, unlike the Discovery Institute, they don't mistake their flights of fancy for seriously contending scientific theories that have done enough homework to warrant a seat at the scientific table.