Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[Crackingham]

Dover Area School District's federal trial began yesterday in Harrisburg with talk ranging from divine intervention and the Boston Red Sox to aliens and bacterial flagellum. After about 10 months of waiting, the court case against the district and its board opened in Middle District Judge John E. Jones III's courtroom with statements from lawyers and several hours of expert testimony from biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller.

On one side of the aisle, several plaintiffs packed themselves in wooden benches behind a row of attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Pepper Hamilton LLC and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. On the other side of the aisle, nine school board members, only three of whom were on the board when it voted 6-3 to include a statement on intelligent design in biology classes, piled in behind lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center. Assistant superintendent Michael Baksa and superintendent Richard Nilsen shared a bench with Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor expected to take the stand in defense of intelligent design.

SNIP

Miller, whose resume is several pages long and includes a stint as a professor at Harvard University, was the first witness called for the parents. Miller co-wrote the Prentice Hall textbook "Biology" with professor Joe Levine. The book is used by 35 percent of the high school students in the United States, Miller said. His were some of the thousands of biology books in which school officials in Cobb County, Ga., ordered stickers to be placed, warning that evolution is only a theory, "not a fact." Miller also testified in a lawsuit filed by Cobb County parents, and a judge later ordered that the stickers be removed.

Yesterday, the scientist's testimony was at times dominated by scientific terminology, though he jokingly told ACLU attorney Witold Walczak he would do his best to explain things in the layman's terms he uses with his mother.

Miller said intelligent design supporters think an intelligent designer must have been involved in the creation of life because science can't yet prove how everything evolved. He said the intelligent design idea that birds were created with beaks, feathers and wings and fish were born with fins is a creationist argument.

Intelligent design supporters often cite "irreducible complexity" in their research, he said. "Irreducible complexity" means that a living thing can't be reduced by any part or it won't work at all. So those living things could not have evolved in the way Darwin suggested; they had to be created with all of their existing parts, Miller said.

Intelligent design proponents often cite the bacterial flagellum, a bacterium with a tail that propels it, Miller said. Behe and his colleagues claim bacterial flagellum had to be created with all of its parts because it couldn't function if any of them were taken away, Miller testified. But scientists have proved that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced to a smaller being, a little organism that operates in a manner similar to a syringe, Miller said.

One of the biggest problems with the scientific viability of intelligent design is there is no way to experiment with the presence of a supernatural being because science only deals with the natural world and theories that are testable, Miller said.

Some people might suspect divine intervention last year when the Boston Red Sox came back to win the World Series after losing three games in a row to the New York Yankees in the playoffs. It may have been, but that's not science, he said. And intelligent design proponents haven't named the "intelligent being" behind their supposition, Miller said. They have suggested, among other things, that it could be aliens, he said. He said there is no evidence to prove intelligent design, so its proponents just try to poke holes in the theory of evolution.

[Thatcherite]

Did you notice them queuing up to applaud the guy who equated evolution with immorality?

[colorado tanker]

The GGG ping list is absolutely fascinating. Please, please, please, don't import the evo/crevo wars into our pleasant little village!

[Right Wing Professor]

Atheist and secularists are using up the remaining credit of a society and culture founded on morality which stems from universal religious principles.

Yeah, prety soon we'll be stoning witches to death and killing people who differ from us on minor doctrinal issues. Oh wait, no, that was what our 'culture founded on morality which stems from universal religious principles' did.

So you're saying we'll do worse than you did over the last 20 centuries? Wow. Frankly, I doubt I can live up to the high standards of mayhem you've set for me.

[King Prout]

nice one!

[Diamond]

Then attempt to demonstrate how humans possess characteristics which are different in kind (rather than degree) from these animal traits.

Very easy to do. A prime example; human language. You cannot explain its supposed evolution and existence in any coherent, knowledgeable way, yet you believe it must have evolved because evolution is true.

‘Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable.  There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’
Chomsky, N., Language and the Mind, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, pp. 67-68, 1972.

Cordially,

[MineralMan]

"‘Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’"

Interesting that you quote Chomsky from 1972, 33 years ago. You'd have gotten a very different response from him in more recent years. We've discovered that a wide range of animals use language. They're not as good at it as we are, of course, but use it they do. I suspect Chomsky would have been very interested in that research.

You see, that's the problem with using old quotes. They're out of date.

[King Prout]

you are citing CHOMSKY?!?!?

ok.

let's start with the basics: do you know what language IS?

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you agree with Chomsky on Iraq, American Foreign Policy, and economics too? I mean, as a linguist, if he's an authority on biology, why not on politics?

[tamalejoe]

>Maybe this is a bad time to ask this but...what is exactly the problem with being "one's own God"?

For God that's not a problem; for YOU it is...

[King Prout]

that Diamond cited CHOMSKY at all still has me floored.

[js1138]

And fervid believers in evolution cannot handle the tiniest bit of criticism...

I missed this one the first time through the thread.

You must not do much reading in science. Where do you think all the out-of-context quotes from scientists come from -- the ones that get posted on creationist web sites -- if they don't come from scientists criticizing their own and other's work?

The leading edge of science is always a battleground, and everyone would love to shoot down some cherished theory.

[Junior]

It's not my belief that restrains me; it is God's grace.

So you're saying you lack the self-control necessary to restrain yourself. Would you accept the proposition that there are others, more mature than you, that do exercise self control without recourse to external restraint?

[Vive ut Vivas]

For God that's not a problem; for YOU it is...

Do tell me how! I seem to be doing alright, no?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

From Discovery.org:

In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design

[b_sharp]

"Also, the "attendant rejection of evolution" comes not just from my belief in God, but from common sense. Macro-evolution has never been observed, never been tested, never been repeated in a lab, and never been proven.

"When's the last time you saw a pregnant catfish give birth to some freak-like amphibian with feet?!

It will never happen. Evolution does not say it will happen, in fact says that it would not happen.

The time humans have been studying evolution gives us the same view of the change from one taxon to another as viewing one frame of a movie reel. By looking at that one frame we will never be able to watch the movie change from the beginning to the end, just as we cannot watch the change in species result in a change in higher taxa. However if we instead of viewing the entire movie, happen upon individual frames of the movie in the form of photos stacked up on a desk in chronological order, we can easily determine what the plot is by examining each photo in order. The beginning of the movie is one species and the end of the movie is another species from some other higher taxon.

Think of evolution as an IQ test, where we need to link a number of snapshots to recreate the correct story.

[Vive ut Vivas]

that Diamond cited CHOMSKY at all still has me floored.

I don't remember how long ago this was, but I remember seeing a creationist cite Thomas Paine. Always amusing.

[jennyp]

So what about the passage that God made man in his image and likeness?? Doesn't that contradict mere chance creation of some creature which could appreciate Him?

Well, of course it all depends on how literally you want to go in reading the Bible. Miller, Being Catholic, has no problem using his judgement in determining which passages can be literal & which ones only make sense as allegorical or poetic.

And what about the immortal soul? If the latter was the case, did the soul as well as the body evolve, or is the soul somthing God created just for man?

Well, I've never heard anybody say that souls mate & have little baby souls, so I don't see how evolution could work in Heaven. (Nor for that matter, how whether our souls go on living after we die could possibly influence evolution. How could there be any natural selection pressure for or against what happens to our souls after we die?)

Then, do animals have immortal souls?? Perhaps they do, but just like intelligence, they are qualitatively different from the soul of man.

Personally I think the concept of a "soul" is a combination of reification/anthropomorphization and wishful thinking, so I have no such conundrum to grapple with. :-) I do, however, think that animals have consciousness, which is what the "soul" is an analogy for, IMO. But of course they have definite limitations, even though they do have personalities & identities of their own.

Now, if humans have souls & the whole Christian framework is true, then how perfect is heaven if I get there only to find that Lightbulb (RIP) was prohibited from getting there too?

[sr4402]

If you had said that atheists believe there is no life after death, AND they have no ethical or moral principles, therefore they can rape and pillage, you'd have made your point.

Logically, the evolutionist/theist can still jettison their theism for the underline evolutionary justification at any time. The creationist has no such recourse.

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

The logical implications of evolution on both science and morality are evident when you look at the mechanisms chosen. In this case, the mechanisms are death. Moses, said "Choose Life". So the question of which you choose is logical.

[MineralMan]

Here's what Chomsky wrote in 1995, somewhat later than your earlier quote. You'll need to read this closely. Chomsky is an obtuse sort of writer:

---

John Maynard Smith [NYR, November 30, 1995] quotes a phrase of mine that he finds "completely baffling" though "typical of" what I say about evolution. It is mere truism, as is clear when we restore the context, which he virtually repeats.

Smith is referring to 1986 lectures of mine which (as often before) begin with the assumption that language is part of "shared biological endowment" and can be studied in the manner of other biological systems. I pointed out that "evolutionary theory...has little to say, as of now," about such matters as language, and progress may require better understanding of "what kinds of physical systems can develop under the conditions of life on earth," exactly as in the study of evolution of the visual system, for example. One research direction is suggested by cases in which "organs develop to serve one purpose, and, when they have reached a certain form in the evolutionary process, became available for different purposes, at which point the processes of natural selection may refine them further for these purposes" (well-known proposals about evolution of insect wings are mentioned as a possible illustration; irrelevantly, alternatives have since been proposed, illustrating the same point). In general, when we consider the space of physical possibilities and specific contingencies, the apparent difficulty "even to imagine a course of evolution that might have given rise to [language or wings]" may be overcome.

[narby]

Your quoting Chomsky? Wow. Do you know who he is?