An idea that provoked, but didn't deliver [by Kenneth R. Miller]

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 25 December 2005 | Kenneth R. Miller

[fizziwig]

"Intelligent design will be happening when the humans master not only reading the genomes, but understanding them and then writing them ourselves. If we write [and then implement] them intelligently, then it will be Intelligent Design. Probably something like year 2150, give or take."

Adolph Hitler's dream....

[Stultis]

It is compatible though with evolution directed by God...but that is ID...

Actually, no, that's not ID. Remember ID bases it's "inference" of "intelligent design" on the presumption that certain features COULD NOT have evolved, even though many ID'ers believe many other things did evolve. ID may coexist with evolution as a kind of supplement: somethings evolved, others were "intelligently designed". And granted it's entirely mysterious what ID might be in terms of positive process, since IDers resolutely refuse to even speculate about how (or when, or where) instances of ID are actually instantiated.

But it's entirely clear what ID is NOT. If it's possible that something "evolved" then that is definitely not "ID".

Still, we have Pantheism, which is a nice cozy God that lets you do whatever you want because all is God...both good and evil. Its very popular among new agers and compatible fully with Darwinism.

Sure, pantheism's compatible too. And most "new ager" types are probably evolutionists of some description (although certainly not all -- as witness our own Alamo-Girl and betty boop, Christian new agers who take the creationism side in these debates). But it should be noted that new agers have often been hostile to Darwinism -- that is to specifically darwinian versions of evolution -- and sometimes champion creationism, or at least creationism's antievolution arguments.

Just a few example of works by new agers in my antievolution library that come to mind: Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (repeats many typical creation science arguments); William Fix, The Bone Peddlers (ditto); Maharahji PradaYadaWhatchmacallhim Life Comes from Life (Hare Krishna -- evolution contradicts reincarnation which holds that souls evolve but species remain fixed); and several others (e.g. anything related to Theosophy, which has it's own evolutionary scheme including "root races" and "vibrational levels" that is utter incompatible on multiple grounds with any scientific account).

[VadeRetro]

Merry Christmas to you and all!

[Stultis]

NOG ... HAZE ... THICKENING ...

[Dimensio]

Its still ID in my book...maybe not the ID promoted by ID'rs, but still ID.

Even so, it isn't science (because it falls back on a supernatural cause, which is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry) and shouldn't be presented as such.

[Dimensio]

These guys are downright frightening. No "positive evidence for design"? Baloney. There's plenty of positive evidence for design.

References?

[goldstategop]

Darwin never asserted his theory sought to explain ultimate origins. It only sought to explain the empirically risible processes behind the variety and extent of adaptation of living things to their environment on earth. It leaves open the question of whether all things came into being through an Ultimate Cause. You can deny that one exists like a number of scientists do. Then again you'd be as dogmatic and dishonest as the creationists are. There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[VadeRetro]

Got too hazy last night. Don't feel like it now. Hair of the dog was always hard to contemplate.

[cornelis]

We see frequent statements that the observed regularity in nature is evidence (or even proof) of design. But we often see assertions that it's the observed irregularities (like alleged instances of irreducible complexity) that reveal the role of the designer. It's hard to test a doctrine like that.

Aquinas already did so, at least from the epistemological standpoint. The sum total correlations of things are different from the individual correlations as they are known to us. In other words, the dichotomy regular and irregular are not equally observer contingent.

Secondly, just as the presence of regularity does not make irregularity disappear, the causality of intelligence does not make random events disappear.

Hegel did something similar when he raised non-being (a logical concept) to an existential reality. Can't do that.

[PatrickHenry]

Merry Christmas to you and all!

And to you.

Those who missed the annual Christmas party at Darwin Central's headquarters missed out on seeing the Grand Master in his Santa outfit. Quite a sight!

[goldstategop]

No one believes life came into being by pure blind chance. That's a 19th Century materialist oversimplification of Darwinian evolution. If you believe there's nothing special about life itself and there's no unseen reality that guides it along, then life came into being by mere chance. If on the other hand, you believe life is the result of the purposeful interaction of a variety of complicated factors, then evolution is indeed purposeful. There are a number of different interpretations of evolution and a strictly materialist one is not the only one compatible with science. Its only where you deny the existence of natural laws that evolution ends and creationism and its intellectual progeny enters. The world allows for miracles but God chose not to interfere in order to preserve human free will and see to it Nature remained a world apart from that of Man. Nature and living things do not recognize any Higher Law or Truth and Beauty. Only human beings are capable of that and science has only added to our appreciation of the grandeur and complexity of the world we all inhabit.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[GSlob]

He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious.

[fizziwig]

"No one believes life came into being by pure blind chance"

You cannot be serious? Millions do. Richard Dawkins, king of blind chance and Darwinism, does. I read his book...The Blind Watchmaker...its very good. I don't believe it but he is an intelligent man and persuavsive debater.

Cmon, lets not make such overtly ridiculous statements.

[fizziwig]

"He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious."

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I agree though, fellatious arguments such as ad hominem arguments really suck.

[fizziwig]

"There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony."

I agree, but evolution by chance is completely incompatible with the Judeo Christian concept of God, and certainly incompatible with the Christian concept of the fall of man and redemption through Christ.

But we have been down that road...you don't believe there are any true athiests out there (i.e. blind chancers) but I cannot fathom how you can come to that conclusion.

[GSlob]

What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about. Thus ad hominem references to his dreams are not arguments in the least - and therefore by their proper antillectual quality are to be designated as fellatious.

[goldstategop]

Then what's you and me - a lucky roll of the dice? Using that analogy, its difficult to see why we should be here at all. If you believe there's no great value to life, its hard to see why any one, least of all Richard Dawkins, would make an argument for blind chance. Even a roll of a dice in a casino has only 50 50 odds of landing the right way. So, why are human beings sentient and animals aren't? There's nothing in an evolution driven by blind chance that favors the rise of a sentient species like ourselves. It could just as happily manage without one around.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Oztrich Boy]

Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering

[massadvj]

Among the many implications of this trial here in Pennsylvania is that the outcome is but one more nail in the coffin of Rick Santorum.

[wyattearp]

What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about. Thus ad hominem references to his dreams are not arguments in the least - and therefore by their proper antillectual quality are to be designated as fellatious.

Fellatious isn't really a word, but if you are to attempt to derive it from a real word, the best guess would be the verb "to fellate". I think that you meant "fallacious". I hope you meant that, anyways.

In any case, you are quite amusing...