Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western

Louise,

I did see the video of Ken Miller's presentation. Very well done. I have
a few comments to make and questions to ask on the list:

(1) Is Ken Miller a member of ASA? If not, we need to recruit him :-)
He has a very persuasive and cordial style of presentation, even in the
midst of a very controversial topic. Maybe he gets his unflappable nature
from being a baseball umpire ;-)

(2) The audience seemed to be pretty overwhelming anti-ID. Maybe all the
ID'ers were slumped down in their seats or something, but it was curious
to note that there was no serious rebuttal in the form of questions from
the audience.

(3) There was a lot of laughter regarding Michael Behe's comment during
the Dover trial that astrology might be considered as science. I
chuckled too, but it does raise questions as to how we relate to the
historical development of science. It is tempting just to write off
something with a sense of chronological snobbery. But would we really
have astronomy today without some of the questions first raised by
astrology? Would we have chemistry today without some of the
questions raised by alchemy?

(4) I appreciated Miller noting that challenges to science come from both
the political right AND the political left. For example, Miller talked
about an anti-science sentiment coming from some European leftist
movements.

(5) Miller was quick to point out that he does not want to tout his Roman
Catholicism. On the other hand, it would have been helpful to hear
something of his spiritual testimony. Miller may not think that a witness
to his faith is appropriate to the discussion. Nevertheless, it may help
those who are convinced that practicing evolutionary scientists are
nothing but atheists or religious liberals.

(6) Miller argued that cultural critique helps to motivate the
ID movement. ID proponents have argued that methodological naturalism is
*essentially* tied to philosophical naturalism. Therefore, Darwinism, as
the chief example of methodological/philosophical naturalism , is
responsible for the decay of Western morals and decline of the traditional
family.

I was disappointed that Miller just sort of left that there. I suppose
Miller was just trying to keep the discussion focused on the nature of
science. But if indeed the cultural critique offered by Phillip Johnson
is *the* (if not simply "a") driving force behind ID, then it would make
sense to directly address it. Otherwise, public pleas to uphold the
integrity of science simply will fall on the deaf hears of those who
already accept Johnson's cultural critique.

Many Christians today (like myself) are sympathetic with the concerns that
Phillip Johnson makes about today's moral decay and its connection to a
philosophical naturalism. I am just not convinced that evolutionary
science (as practiced by someone like a Ken Miller) is really the
boogeyman Johnson makes it out to be.

Blessings in Him,

Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Network Engineering
Williamsburg Virginia

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Freeman, Louise Margaret wrote:

> Ken Miller gave a talk at Case Western on Tuesday night about intelligent design; the video is
> available online at www.pandasthumb.org. It's long (amost 2 hours) but well worth the viewing.
> Our own George Murphy gave the opening prayer and moderated the Q & A session afterwards. I'd
> be interested in discussing the presentation on the list.
> __
> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
> Psychology Dept
> Mary Baldwin College
> Staunton, VA 24401
> 540-887-7326
> FAX 540-887-7121
Received on Tue Jan 10 11:14:10 2006