Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western

*> Ken plays more fairly than anyone from the ID or YEC camp.*

From what I've seen, I disagree. I've certainly observed that the YEC camp
doesn't play fair. I haven't observed it as much from the ID camp, but I
wouldn't doubt it. But neither does Miller play fair from the written and
televised debates I've seen. It's become a political question, and like any
politics, it's riddled with bad arguments and sleight of hand on both sides,
IMHO.

*> Also you should know by now that no amount of evidence will persuade a
YEC or ID to change their mind.*

This is neither fair nor true. I recall reading something written by a
prominent ASA member who abandoned YEC years ago. I've had the experience
of migrating away from YEC myself, and though I was pretty convinced by ID
in the past, my view of it continues to evolve. And, you could make the
same statement about many folks who think evolutionary theory supports a
materialistic worldview without any need for God. For all the ad hominems
we might be tempted to make about commited YEC or ID folks, I'd think ASA
members who oppose YEC and ID should remember that the statement of faith to
which they subcribed when they joined the ASA is held in equal ridicule by
many materialists.

On 1/10/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Perhaps some ignorant Brit can comment. Ken Miller is a leading biologist
of world stature and the co-author of a major text. He has an excellent
reputation apart from his opposition to ID and YEC.
>
> Ken plays more fairly than anyone from the ID or YEC camp. He happens to
be a highly skilled debater as well.
>
> Also you should know by now that no amount of evidence will persuade a YEC
or ID to change their mind.
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: George Murphy
> Cc: Clarke Morledge ; Freeman, Louise Margaret ; asa@calvin.edu
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western
>
>
> His reputation in the biology world might be beyond the proverbial 15
minutes, but without the ID debate, he wouldn't be anywhere near the
celebrity he's become. Would someone like me have seen him on TV without
the ID debate? Would he be selling truckloads of glossy books without the
ID debate? Please.
>
> I've seen the "astrology" thing raised as the canard that I've desribed,
though not directly by Miller. Even the point you mention is an
inaccurate characterization of the testimony, which simply relates to the
historically contingent nature of all scientific theories.
>
> Finally, the responses I've seen to Miller's points about the flagellum
are (a) that the literature Miller cites doesn't say what he says it does
-- Miller is drawing implications from the literature that aren't there; and
(b) Miller misstates what irreducible complexity means. I don't think the
"where's the peer reviewed response" argument makes any sense in that
context. No peer reviewed journal would publish an article about "why Ken
Miller misinterprets a bunch of articles about the protiens in flagella" --
that's not the role of peer reviewed journals do.
>
> Anyway, George, I don't really want to get into a debate with you about IC
or ID or Behe or anything like that. Obviously you and many others in the
ASA find IC / ID grossly lacking. At one time I found IC very convincing.
Now I'm a little more cautious about it, though I still find it
interesting. I admit that, not being a biologist, I lack many of the tools
needed to evaluate arguments about things like the protiens in flagella in
any real detail. I do think, though, that I know a bit about rhetoric and
arguments, and IMHO, from what I've observed, Ken Miller doesn't play fair.
>
> On 1/10/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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, 10 Jan 2006 18:04:24 -0500