Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

The collapse of Intelligent Design

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The collapse of Intelligent Design

    Kenneth R. Miller is a believer in both God and the afterlife. He is not an atheist materialist, and yet he has written some of the most hard hitting books around against ID. I highly recommend the following lecture:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

  • #2
    Originally posted by Weedar View Post
    Kenneth R. Miller is a believer in both God and the afterlife. He is not an atheist materialist, and yet he has written some of the most hard hitting books around against ID. I highly recommend the following lecture:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
    This was uploaded in 2006.
    ID has not died yet, or looks to do so any time soon!

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting talk.

      I don't know if he really addressed the teleological ideas behind ID. The way ID was explained to me by a Jesuit scholar who studied the work of Teilhard de Chardin was water flowing down a mountain.

      The bottom is the destination, the "Omega Point". So the exact route may be random, but the destination doesn't change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Millers arguments and misrepresentations are easily answered, I will be back with details.

        Comment


        • #5
          Miller believes that God set everything in motion from the big bang, it is just another form of intelligent design. The theistic evolutionists are a perplexing bunch that is for sure. The lecture is very old, and yet ID is flourishing. So it seems ID is alive and well and it's arguments have gained in strength while Neo Darwinism has been outdated by evolutionary science itself. Nearly all of the tenants of the modern synthesis have been refuted or replaced by new evidence and mechanisms. It has flatlined.

          I recomend the lecture by Dennis Noble on this issue.
          Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology | Voices From Oxford

          See also...
          The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
          Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
          Biology Direct | Full text | The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
          Beyond neo-Darwinism?an epigenetic approach to evolution
          Discover - April 2011
          Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology
          http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/

          As for Millers lecture, let us look at some of the scientific issues. A good deal of the lecture concerns politics, teaching and court cases. I have no interest in this, I don't care what politicians or judges think. I am only interested in the science.

          1. Whale evolution, the evolutionary poster child once again. Many ID theorists don't dispute that the transition occured, myself included. The fossil record does not support the gradualism of Darwinism at all despite what Ken says. Darwins tree of life is a myth. See the Darwins Doubt thread for more details.

          As for whale evolution, Richard Sternberg goes to town on the poster child.
          Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - Video

          2. The fused chromosome? This is nothing but cherry picking and there is nothing to say that the fusion didn't occur exclusively within proto humans. Once again more from Sternberg. I do wish he would get more involved in the debate, the man is an intellectual power house.

          all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows..., the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates

          (Farré M, Ponsà M, Bosch M. 2009. "Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.).

          In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed.
          Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Evolution News & Views

          The idea we are 96% genetically similar is a myth. Based on the failed evolutionary prediction that junk DNA is evolutionary debris from the blind haphazzard process. It compares the miniscule 2% of the genome only. One failed assumption leads to another.

          3. Miller makes a strawman out of irriducible complexity claiming if any parts of a system exist elsewhere then IC is refuted. This is false. He continues by saying how you can remove 40 genes and what you have is a functioning TSIII. This is deceitful, there are several problems with this. Firstly these are sub systems it is the same as saying if I have a missile launcher (injection system) mounted on a truck ( flagella motillity system) I can remove the truck leaving the missilelauncher functioning. Nevermind the fact that the TSIII is also IC.

          But the most damaging to Millers TSIII argument comes from evolutionary biology itself, since this lecture and all the other rants about thecTSIII it is now believed that the TSIII evolved or rather devolved from the flagellum. It came later, sorry Ken. This makes logical sense as mobility would be required first in the absence of animals to transport the TSIII. Perhaps this is why he and others have shut up about it.

          4. Blood clotting cascade, once again Miller misrepresents and creates a strawman. Read the whole back and forth. Ken is a slippery deceitful man with a self glorifying attitude.

          As of February 1, 2010, Miller has not responded to the rebuttals from Behe and Luskin. Instead, Miller has posted on his "Evolution Resources Page" a link to his own original responses to Luskin, boasting that they are "A response to charges from the Discovery Institute." But Miller has in fact not responded to the charges from Discovery Institute because he has not responded to counter-rebuttals from both Behe and Luskin showing Miller's blatant misquotes of Behe.
          CSC - Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga


          5. The immune system. Well this is just a snow job, they plonked a stack of books about the immune system in front of Behe without giving him the chance to review them. Well none of the books even addressed Behe's point that these systems developed in the very first unicellular eukarya. The stack of books only speaks of development after the fact not how the systems came to be in the first place. There is plenty of speculation on how the immune system developed but alas speculation is not evidence. Many can't tell the difference it seems, including judge Jones.

          “These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.”
          I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection — if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read.”
          An interview with microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his work for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers being published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with the actual evolution of the immune system at all.

          What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much – April 2011
          PodOmatic | Best Free Podcasts
          “A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception”: Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial – audio.
          PodOmatic | Best Free Podcasts

          Also...

          Immune system molecule with hidden talents – January 22, 2013
          The human immune system is made up of some half a dozen different cell types that are all working in tandem. Team work is key since each cell type has a single unique job to perform, which is central to its ability to help defend the body against invaders and ward off disease. If one of these players is taken out of commission, the entire system is thrown out of whack.,,,
          “We had no idea that B cells and dendritic cells use immunoglobulins to communicate with each other. It just goes to show you how complex the immune system really is and how we are a long way from truly grasping the full scope of its complexity,”
          Immune system molecule with hidden talents
          Hat tip to BA77.

          Another point were Miller has since been refuted is the beta-globin pseudogene. This is what Ken said at the trial.

          And the fact that all three of these species have matching mistakes leads us to just one conclusion, and that's the same conclusion that Charles Darwin predicted almost a century and a half ago, and that is that these three species share a common ancestor. Matching mistakes are evidence of common ancestry. (Day 1 AM, p. 81)
          Well guess what? A paper published in Genome biology and evolution argues that it plays an important role in gene regulation.
          Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the "Junk DNA" Argument Bites the Dust - Evolution News & Views

          Oops, sorry Ken.

          And Ken does not even touch on the most powerful evidence for design. Code, the symbol matter problem and information. He like all others have no real answer. Materialism cannot create that which is not material. Code implies knowledge and intent. No blind material process can create it simply because it is not physics. This is a no brainer.
          Last edited by LoneShaman; September 10th, 2013, 02:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            As I said I am not interested in the political issues, however I think it is important to clarify one point.

            The discovery institute does not endorse teaching ID in the classroom.

            As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.
            CSC - Discovery's Science Education Policy

            The Darwin brigade however have made an issue of it and disguised the issue with the "teaching creationism" mantra. This is because they fear the actuall issue about teaching the controversey. Controversey? What controversey? they exclaim with heads firmly in the sand.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LoneShaman View Post
              The discovery institute does not endorse teaching ID in the classroom.

              "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively."
              And yet the DI does believe that teachers know enough to:

              "Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories ..."

              "Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution."

              "Three states (Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi) have adopted statutes that protect the rights of teachers and/or students to discuss the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution or other scientific theories in the curriculum. The Tennessee law permits teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." "

              I don't trust most teachers to explain evolution clearly, let alone discuss supposed evidence against it. Hey, but perhaps a couple of clever teachers can point out that the CSI emperor has no clothes.

              ~~ Paul

              Comment

              Working...
              X