Re: Re: Ken Miller talk at Case Western

Seems to me that his sub-spotlight contribution of a series of
apparently solid and well-accepted high-school level biology books may
well be worth far more than the 15 minutes. And that the suggestion that
his motivation is to sell text books is uncalled for in light of the
years of textbook usage prior to the ID hoohaw! The spotlight probably
hurts the sales as much as helps. JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>
> Cc: Clarke Morledge <mailto:chmorl@wm.edu> ; Freeman, Louise
> Margaret <mailto:lfreeman@mbc.edu> ; asa@calvin.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
> <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>
> Cc: Clarke Morledge <mailto:chmorl@wm.edu> ; Freeman,
> Louise Margaret <mailto:lfreeman@mbc.edu> ;
> asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
> <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clarke Morledge" <chmorl@wm.edu
> <mailto:chmorl@wm.edu>>
> To: "Freeman, Louise Margaret" < lfreeman@mbc.edu
> <mailto:lfreeman@mbc.edu>>
> Cc: < asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
> <http://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 20:32:49 2006