Miller can hem and haw all he likes, but if he was the scientist he claims to be, instead of an evolutionist prostitute, he would realize that there is one very simple, very easy to perform (nowadays) test for the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. The test is simply to 'knock out' each of the genes that compose it and see if the system still works. Again if he was a true scientist, he would know that this test has been performed and that if any of the 40+ genes involved in it are 'knocked out' will completely keep the system from functioning.
That's an astonishingly fallacious "argument." This guy is a math prof?
We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that exhibit FL ("four legs" e.g., many human artifacts like tables and chairs exhibit FL). Therefore, biological systems that exhibit FL are likely to be designed. For example, cats and dogs.Why does anyone take him seriously?
In regard to the flagellum, I believe Paul Nelson (in the chat you posted) states something relevant:
“…You wouldn't say we have a "gap" in our understanding of basic physics, if someone wanted to build a real-time communication system between Earth and Mars. Rather, given what we know about electromagnetic transmissions (that carry a signal), it will take about 3.5 minutes for a signal to travel from Earth to mars (and another 3.5 for a reply to come back). That's how the world really works. In a parallel sense, if the developmental variation of animals is fundamentally constrained, then it would be a mistake to try to explain how it *isn't* constrained (and evolved from a common ancestor)…”
Now on to “Miller's Foray into Theology”
The “orthodox Catholic" and "orthodox Darwinian” stance is a bit confusing to me. I have listened to this argument first hand from friends and acquaintances only to come to a stalemate on several issues.
Miller’s quote is familiar:
"The indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay."
“Indeed, what are we to make of this Jesus fellow, who walks on water, multiplies loaves and fishes, gets born of a virgin, and then resurrects after being crucified?”
Please let me state that I do not believe I have all the answers. (Nor do I claim to know what is in another mans heart) When reading anything; context, author, and prose is important. But if we are to believe miracles are to just be explained by natural occurrences, I submit Luke 5: 21-26 and ask “Whether is easier?”
At this point, I would like to expand on Mr. Dembski’s statements. We have a scientific environment that rejects anything religious (in a scientific discussion) but somewhat embraces religion in a cultural sense. It is the ‘intellectual atheist’ that I would like to single out here.
We are all aware of those who may believe what they believe without regard to science. This is true of a religious person as well as an atheistic person but as the religious individual (without regard for science) appeals to religion for morality and truth, to where does the ‘intellectual atheist’ appeal? Where would morality, truth, love, and individuality come from if not from science? How would one choose to explain this if not with science? The Constitution? The culture?
These items come from mankind – so where does mankind come from? Science?
Religion means many things to many people:
re·li·gion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If religion and science should truly be separated, how do we do this for the ‘intellectual atheist’?