Intelligent Design is not Science (Kenneth Miller Speaks at Lehigh)

Lehigh University News ^ | 10/12/2005 | Kurt Pfitzer

[RightWingAtheist]

I also recommend Robert A Millikan's autobiography, as well as his book Science and the New Civilization. Besides being one of the top five or so experimental physicists of the century (I place him third, right below Rutherford and Fermi), Millikan was a staunch conservative Republican and a religious modernist who tried to reconcile his Christian beliefs with modern society, and try to find a role for tradition in the scientific era. Although his writings didn't lead me to a religious awakening, they did help solidify my conservatism.

[RobbyS]

Science study of patterns. From early childhood Newton wss enthralled by patterns, and as he acquired mathematical tools he was able to use them to discern certain truth in those patterns. He was even required to create such tools to achieve his ends. I think this guy is oblivious to the debate that has gone among the mathematicians about the nature of THEIR science. Is the math in nature, or is it in mankind? How does he know? What is real and what is the illusion of reality?

[js1138]

Eugenics, for instance, was once considered scientific, and now it's banished to the pseudoscientific dungeon.

Eugenics is based on animal breeding, something that's been around for thousands of years. Blaming eugenics on science is like blaming murder on guns.

[js1138]

Along those same lines I would argue that even if life were poofed into existence it would have to include evolution as the mechanism for sustaining stability of the ecosystem.

[MHalblaub]

"Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."

Strange quote.

Even the majority of the original German quote is found on English web sites. It is a little bit strange that the Germans don't care about this quote. I think they knew Luther enough to judge that statement.

[westmichman]

We are glad that you have evolved so far beyond those of us who believe in the Creator. Guess what? God has a plan for your life too! You just don't know it.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's something else to ponder. the second biggest question (after "Who designed the designer?") which the IDers have failed to answer: Where does the hypothetical designer get the knowledge to be able to design something?

Yes, good question. The fossil record, which shows that about 90% of the "designed" species that ever lived have gone extinct, calls the designer's knowledge into question. Clearly, the designer is either:

(1) a cosmic crackpot -- a possibility I mention for completeness, but which I reject on theological grounds -- or,
(2) the designer's knowledge is faulty; otherwise he wouldn't have a 90% failure rate.

So the designer is either a maniac or an ignoramus. Going with option 2, the designer's gruesome fumbling around is what you'd expect from the trial-and-error method of natural selection.

[ml/nj]

For instance, if two species appear to be closely related

Similar testable hypothesis:

For instance, if two buildings appear closely related it is more likely that they have similar elevator configurations than two dissimilar buildings.

ML/NJ

[megatherium]

Similar testable hypothesis:

For instance, if two buildings appear closely related it is more likely that they have similar elevator configurations than two dissimilar buildings.

It's not just "similar elevator configurations". It's tiny, random mutations (that have no effect on the organism or any of its biochemical functions) that are more likely to be shared by closely related species. Indeed, if you look at endogenous retroviruses, the case for descent with modification from common ancestors becomes inescapable. Here's the story: Retroviruses such as HIV have the property that they splice their own genetic information into the DNA of a cell they infect. Occasionally, a retrovirus will manage to infect an egg cell: that individual when the egg is fertilized and develops into an adult will have that retrovirus DNA in its genome and so will its decendents. Retroviruses aren't choosy about where their DNA gets spliced in; it's a random process. Often the new DNA doesn't really affect anything, so it doesn't get selected out of the gene pool very quickly. It turns out closely-related organisms will share many of these old retroviral DNA segments, in the same random locations. This has been documented for various species, establishing beyond doubt their common ancestry (just as DNA testing is used to establish paternity in humans).

[ml/nj]

It's tiny, random mutations (that have no effect on the organism or any of its biochemical functions) that are more likely to be shared by closely related species.

You say these "mutations" have no effect, but really what you mean is you don't know what their purpose might be. Some might say the same thing about copper vs PVC piping.

Occasionally, a retrovirus will manage to infect an egg cell: that individual when the egg is fertilized and develops into an adult will have that retrovirus DNA in its genome and so will its descendants.

And this results in a new species how? (Leaving aside the fact that you are hoping that by damaging the original structure you will come up with an improvement, but here I am really asking how this sort of process can lead to descendants biologically incompatible with their ancestors.)

ML/NJ

[VadeRetro]

Oddly enough, the more those that worship atheism shout, the more hollow and shrill their statements.

In dealing with the people trying to get their religion into science class via the trojan horse of ID, one has to deal with the dishonest nature of what they are trying to do.

Science does not have an explanation for everything and it is not possible for science to explain everything.

Science classes are about what science is and does and can explain.

That doesn't mean there is nothing outside of the physical sciences.

That doesn't mean science should now be about what is outside of science.

When you mention logic and philosophy the atheists immediately shriek that it isn't science.

We don't have to shriek it. We can just say it. Science uses logic, especially that subset known as "mathematics," quite routinely. Science is historically connected to philosophy but does not actually use it.

How heavy are the chains in Plato's cave?

How does Superman fly?

Well, evolution does explain the mechanism but not the origin. ID attempts to study that.

Actually, ID not only refuses to address the origin of the Designer, it refuses to address the identity of same, or just what He/he designed, or when, or how often, or by what means. It's "not that kind of theory."

It is a lie to automatically staple ID to theology. Those that insist are no more rational than liberals and their theories.

Do we have to wait for the ID-ists to admit it? They've done it repeatedly. Johnson (the Wedge Document), Behe, Dembski.

Futhermore, if ID were in fact avoiding evolution's turf, it wouldn't consist in all technical arguments as "Evolution cannot explain ... (irreducible complexity, biological information)" and a host of recycled, discredited creationist mantras (no transitional forms, 2nd law of thermo, radiometric dating is flawed, Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryos). It wouldn't patently be the same crowd who thirty years ago was buying Henry Morris books about the Genesis Flood.

All of these screeches against evolution are flawed in fact or logic. None of them have enough soundness or honesty to be given time in science class. Outside of lies and misrepresentations about another theory being wrong, ID has no content to offer. (What real theory in the history of science was ever about nothing so much as another theory being wrong some way, somehow?) The vanguard of the "movement," Seattle's Discovery Institute, admits that ID as yet has no classroom-ready content. That's why we have to teach "the controversy," the aforementioned package of willful misrepresentation and self-delusion.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And this results in a new species how? (Leaving aside the fact that you are hoping that by damaging the original structure you will come up with an improvement, but here I am really asking how this sort of process can lead to descendants biologically incompatible with their ancestors.)"

You have missed the entire point about ERV's. Nobody says this leads to new species. The ERV's are essentially fossil virus' trapped in the DNA. We can see retrovirus' today that become umbered in the host DNA; it doesn't *damage* the host because the virus never gets turned on. If the virus never gets turned on, and is in a sex cell, it won't hurt the host in any way, AND it will be passed on to the next generations.

There are many many of these ERV's in our DNA that we share with chimps, but don't show up in Gorilla's for instance. We have some that we share with both. They are inserted at the exact same point on the DNA; the chances of us getting the same exact virus at the same exact loci that Chimps get by accident is mind numbingly small. It's the evidence that tips common descent into the the arena of fact. (not proved, but fact). There is no reason to believe it is wrong.

[VadeRetro]

You have missed the entire point about ERV's.

Every creationist ALWAYS militantly misses the entire point about ERVs. One must not just root for the ignorance. Ignorance is our strength! Ignorance must be cherished and nurtured. Creation Science! It's not just an oxymoron, it's the "You can't MAKE me see" science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In his book, Behe defined design as “the purposeful arrangement of parts” and wrote that design of “discrete physical systems—if there is not a gradual route to their production—is evident when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. The greater the specificity of the interacting components required to produce the function, the greater is our confidence in the conclusion of design.”

This is what Behe said ID was before he said it wasn't.

[ml/nj]

Every creationist ALWAYS militantly misses the entire point about ERVs. One must not just root for the ignorance. Ignorance is our strength! Ignorance must be cherished and nurtured. Creation Science! It's not just an oxymoron, it's the "You can't MAKE me see" science.

It's such an honour to be addressed by one of such immense intelligence. You just cannot imagine.

FTR, I am not a "creationist." I just know that Darwinian Evolution (in all of its flavors) is a croc. It's cute that you jump in to support someone who says, "Nobody says this leads to new species." If something doesn't lead to a new species then as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to a discussion related to the origin of species.

ML/NJ

[VadeRetro]

FTR, I am not a "creationist." I just know that Darwinian Evolution (in all of its flavors) is a croc.

There are no secular skeptics of evolution who pass the sniff test.

[VadeRetro]

It's cute that you jump in to support someone who says, "Nobody says this leads to new species." If something doesn't lead to a new species then as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to a discussion related to the origin of species.

It's cute you pretend to misunderstand the difference between the mechanism that causes a thing and the forensic evidence trail that it absolutely positively MUST have happened. What did I say? You will forever misunderstand ERVs, militantly. What are you doing? Blatantly reserving the right to never understand the nature of the ERV evidence.

And you're not a creationist? I don't know exactly what a secular skeptic of evolution would look like, but he wouldn't look like a creationist saying, "You can't call me a creationist" rather like Molly Ivins or Ed Asner saying "You can't call me a communist."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I just know that Darwinian Evolution (in all of its flavors) is a croc."

How? Reading tealeaves?

"It's cute that you jump in to support someone who says, "Nobody says this leads to new species." If something doesn't lead to a new species then as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to a discussion related to the origin of species."

Because, Einstein, we were talking about genetic markers that we share with chimps because we have a common ancestor. We were talking about common descent, not speciation or the mechanisms of evolution. They are irrelevant to what we were discussing; ERV's. You obviously have no idea what we posted, yet you felt the need to wave it away anyway. The willful ignorance of Creationists knows no bounds.

And of course you're a creationist; I do understand why you wouldn't want to be associated with them though.

[RightWhale]

Okay, no problem. We'll make a list. Bunny rabbits: good. Oh, wait, except for the one eating the garden. Scratch that.

[cornelis]

Right. That's a simple start for a problem that otherwise gives insight into our place.

Should I have been friends with Manes? Go alternate betwen the temples of Yin and Yang? Hmm. Come to think of it, since you and I live in it, we don't get much better at it for being citizens of the closed universe of Nature.