Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western

But this kind of thing is important because it impacts on Miller's
credibility. If his case is so strong, why does he resort to obvious
distortions like the "astrology" thing? I've seen Miller's presentation on
a TV program, and I was not terribly impressed. He regularly resorts to
unfair rhetorical devices like the "astrology" thing before launching into
his stuff about the flagellum and such. When he does discuss things like
the flagellum, his case seems very strong, at least to someone like me who
is not a biologist. But then, when I read a little further, I learn that
there are responses to Miller's analysis of the flagellum that seem equally
strong, which Miller doesn't seem to address. So, if Miller wants to make
his case with folks like me, he needs to do better with his credibility
overall. My impression of Miller is that he's getting his 15 minutes of
fame and probably making a nice buck off of all this.

On 1/10/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> The point about astrology can, as I said, be debated. In any case it's an
> essentially rhetorical matter. I hope that discussions won't be sidetracked
> onto that topic & ignore the much more substantive points that Miller made.
> In particular, the references that he cited demolish quite thoroughly
> crucial parts of Behe's scientific position - namely, that the bacterial
> flagellum & blood clotting cascade are irreducibly complex. If past
> performance is any guide, however, anti-evolutionists will continue to cite
> these things, as they still do with thoroughly debunked items like the
> Paluxy man tracks & the shrinking sun.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* Clarke Morledge <chmorl@wm.edu> ; Freeman, Louise Margaret<lfreeman@mbc.edu>;
> asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western
>
>
> I'm sure this talk was interesting, but it's a bit distressing to hear the
> "astrology" canard being raised. If your read the transcript from the Dover
> trial, you'll see that Behe never claimed astrology is a valid science like
> evolution is today, nor did he endorse astrology. The testimony was in the
> broader context of how scientific theories develop and are tested, what
> constitutes testability, and the historical contingency of all scientific
> theories. However else you might want to criticize Behe and his ideas, this
> particular jab is just as unfair as when someone like Ken Ham gets a
> congregation to chant "were you there!?."
>
> On 1/10/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've just sent Ken Miller an email suggesting that he might check out
> > ASA at
> > our website.
> >
> > I don't know if any ID proponents were at his talk but if they were they
> >
> > kept quiet. Someone told me that he thought that there might be an AiG
> > rep
> > present (there was for a conference we had on evolution, ID &c at CWRU
> > in
> > October '04 at which Ken was also a speaker) but if there was he didn't
> > advertise himself.
> >
> > Actually methodological naturalism doesn't require one to reject
> > astrology.
> > It can be presented as naturalistic science, but of course then it's
> > just
> > very bad science, & has been seen to be so for centuries. At the same
> > time
> > we have to recognize that in reality astrology generally has had a
> > religious
> > component, especially when it's taken seriously today as part of New Age
> > thought.
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clarke Morledge" <chmorl@wm.edu>
> > To: "Freeman, Louise Margaret" < lfreeman@mbc.edu>
> > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:13 AM
> > Subject: 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 16:25:22 2006