Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western

1st, your last sentence could be placed in the "canard" category in which you put his statement about astrology. Miller is a well established biologist & educator & his reputation is well beyond the proverbial 15 minutes.

2d, the point about astrology is hardly the "canard" you pictured it as. Miller did not say that Behe thought it was as valid as evolutionary theory or say that it should be taught (as you suggested). The point is rather that Behe's definition of science is so broad as to include virtually anything - as of course it must be if he's going to get ID in.

& the arguments about the flagellum & blood clotting are not Miller's invention. In the talk at CWRU he was simply citing the recent scientific literature for research which shows that those things aren't irreducibly correct. Of course you'll find "responses" to these results but will they be (like the original publications) in peer-reviewed professional journals?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Clarke Morledge ; Freeman, Louise Margaret ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:24 PM
  Subject: 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
      To: George Murphy
      Cc: Clarke Morledge ; Freeman, Louise Margaret ; 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 17:15:07 2006