Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

For all the Christian creationists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you?
This man is a respected researcher on cell biology (he specializes in cell membranes), and was the lead witness for the government against the creationist school board of Dover PA.
I watched this lecture, unaware that he was a believing Catholic until he says so 1/2 way through.

I wonder what the Christian creationists on the forum will say after sitting through his devastating criticism of 'intelligent design'

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

They haven't listened to myself and other catholics here in the past so I doubt they'll be swayed by Ken Miller. Their problem is that their theology is rooted in misinterpretations of scripture, and willful blindness as to what the very early church was really like (the church in the 100s & 200s didn't look like theirs but like the catholic church). Instead they will put their faith in interpretations of 1500 years later martin and johnny-come-latelies, and in *selective* literalism. Plus they can't see the absurdity of denying the proposition that true science and true doctrine cannot conflict, since true science merely describes the universe created by God. But of course for them, "true science" is anything but and leads to more and more ridiculous notions, just as one lie leads to another.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

For those who may not know, there is a comprehensive archive of the Dover trial transcripts here. Miller spends the first part of his testimony talking about his background and credentials and then gets into the meat of his direct testimony here. It's a very accessible introduction to evolutionary concepts and the ID controversy that I've recommended to several people (non-scientists) who wanted to learn more about evolution.

Thanks for the link; I haven't watched the video, but hope to find the time soon.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

Thank you for posting this, will take a look.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

For all the Christian creationists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For all the Christian creationists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge the question NotReady. Did you watch the lecture?

Accepting evolution by natural selection does not preclude belief in God. It is only a first step. One could easily believe in God and accept the theory, because it doesn't have anything to say (directly) about the origin of the Universe. You can still try to use God to explain the cosmological origin of the Universe. Once you do that, then you must confront the astrophysicists.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For all the Christian creationists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because these two subjects have little to do with each other.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge the question NotReady.


[/ QUOTE ]

No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none.

[ QUOTE ]

then you must confront the astrophysicists.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

What about my question? Are you dodging it?

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Because these two subjects have little to do with each other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you got my point.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge the question NotReady.


[/ QUOTE ]

No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just false, there is an enormous body of evidence. There is also no other scientific theory that comes close to being as explanatory of what we see in nature as the Theory of Evolution is.

I'm presuming the evidence you require is in the form of fossils only. Thankfully, people who study the field realize that fossils only form in certain circumstances and that we wouldn't expect to find fossils of every species of creature that ever existed. They also realize that every time you find one "transitional fossil" you would need to find two more to explain the new "gaps in the fossil record" that are created.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is also no other scientific theory that comes close to being as explanatory of what we see in nature as the Theory of Evolution is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I think I'll stick with mechanics on that one.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because these two subjects have little to do with each other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you got my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are talking out both sides of you mouth. You say in this thread that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with belief in God (I agree with that), but in another thread you say
this :[ QUOTE ]

The universe only makes sense if Christianity is true. All other world views can be reduced to irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are in contradiction. The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread. This source of this contradiction has two possibilities: (1) your reasoning is wrong, and/or (2) one of your initial assumptions is wrong.
I submit that your belief in God as the creator of the universe is of the second category of errors.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]


No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's really true. You have stated that there isn't a direct contradiction, only a problem with the evidence. But all your objections to the the theory aren't based on evidence, but on religious grounds. This is made clear by the post I linked above, where you said that Dennett's view of Darwinism was : "it's just atheism dressed up as science with no place to go."

What evidentiary issues do you have that Ken Miller doesn't address in his lecture?

[ QUOTE ]

then you must confront the astrophysicists.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

What about my question? Are you dodging it?

[/ QUOTE ]

My OP was focused on ID...
I won't dodge the question at all. I think that the cosmological evidence shows no sign of design. Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state that. Before we go any further I should point out that we haven't really defined evolution (Man we need a FAQ). In the thread you cite I specified Darwinism as equivalent to atheism. I haven't made that connection in this thread (we could really use a FAQ).

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state that. Before we go any further I should point out that we haven't really defined evolution (Man we need a FAQ). In the thread you cite I specified Darwinism as equivalent to atheism. I haven't made that connection in this thread (we could really use a FAQ).

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the statement in two parts. Above, in this thread, you quoted another poster: "the two have little to do with each other" and agreed with him, and in another thread, you rejected the evolution, because "the world only makes sense if Christianity is true". So you have agreed with another poster that evolution and belief in God aren't contradictory, and in another thread you have said that they are not compatible.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

his is made clear by the post I linked above, where you said that Dennett's view of Darwinism was : "it's just atheism dressed up as science with no place to go."


[/ QUOTE ]

In the thread you reference my main issue with Dennett was his statement that evolution is mindless. That's why I made the statement you quote. And that is different from what I say about the possibility of theistic evolution, which I reject, not on religious grounds, but evidentiary ones, as I made plain in the thread on human evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that the cosmological evidence shows no sign of design.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think almost every astronomer and astrophysicist would disagree with this.

[ QUOTE ]

Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if God is uncreated, eternal.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

So you have agreed with another poster that evolution and belief in God aren't contradictory, and in another thread you have said that they are not compatible


[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

Not Ready,

Please go over to my microevolution thread. I took 3-1 that you would agree with at least 90% of it.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]


In the thread you reference my main issue with Dennett was his statement that evolution is mindless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take issue with Dennett's statement that evolution is mindless, you are taking on the whole theory. Thats the whole point, its an unguided physical process.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no other scientific theory that comes close to being as explanatory of what we see in nature as the Theory of Evolution is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I think I'll stick with mechanics on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

By nature I meant the diversity of species in nature and not the whole of the natural universe.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Thats the whole point, its an unguided physical process.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then do you really want to redo the Dennett thread?

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If such a being exists, then it is, BY DEFINITION, part of the Universe and subject to its laws. This is because the Universe is defined as everything that exists.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If such a being exists, then it is, BY DEFINITION, part of the Universe and subject to its laws. This is because the Universe is defined as everything that exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that we can observe the entire Universe. I think that you are confusing 'observable universe' with 'Universe'. When I say 'Universe', I mean anything and everything that exists, regardless, whether or not we are aware of it.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready,

Please go over to my microevolution thread. I took 3-1 that you would agree with at least 90% of it.


[/ QUOTE ]


I read your post. At first, I was reluctant to post because if I do I'm going to get trapped into answering an unending series of minute questions so you and your bettor can determine who wins.

What I will do, if you agree, is make one and only one post in response. That's it. You and the bettor will have to decide from that who, if anyone, wins. But no exceptions, no further posts, no clarifications, no answers to anyone else's posts.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

.... I was reluctant to post because if I do I'm going to get trapped into answering an unending series of minute questions so you and your bettor can determine who wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly are trapped, but its a trap of your own making. We haven't trapped you, you have trapped yourself with your circular and contradictory logic.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that we can observe the entire Universe. I think that you are confusing 'observable universe' with 'Universe'. When I say 'Universe', I mean anything and everything that exists, regardless, whether or not we are aware of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it.

So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe. That is why I said in my first post:
[ QUOTE ]

This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For all the Christian creationists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you leave the concept of God vague and leave off the bonus attributes theists assign to "Him", I sort of do believe in God, I just don't call it that because it gives people the wrong idea. I have tried unsuccessfully to get this point across before but it's Monday so whatever [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none.



[/ QUOTE ]

Simply amazing.

NR, suppose you are the lead homicide detective investigating the rape and murder of some poor young girl. Analysis of the perpetrator's DNA (unlikely left due to only casual contact based on where it was found on the victim's body, etc) compared to the DNA of the girl indicates, according to the lab scientist, he is a relative. The girl's father is deceased, so suspicion immediately falls upon an uncle, who is the only nearby male relative.

Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself, sufficient evidence to get a court order to collect a sample of the uncle's DNA, and treat him as a suspect, or do you discount the claim of the crime lab scientist?

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly can make claims about the parts and nature of the Universe that has been observed so far. Thus far, no real sign of God or a creator/designer. There's no reason to believe it, because we have no evidence of it. What I can't do is claim that God exists because we can't see all of the Universe. I'll leave that up to you.

[ QUOTE ]

So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK. You can say that God is outside the observable Universe. Fine. God must, therefore, be reaaaaalllly [censored] far away, millions and billions of light years away from the earth, hidden by gas, dust, galaxy clusters and untold space and time. What do you propose is the mechanism by which he interacts with us here on earth? Wormholes? Faster than light communication? Quantum tunneling? Id love to hear an explanation.

Or, if you're a deist, and don't think that God interferes in human affairs, do you think that he was at the center of the big bang? Perhaps he is stuck out there, at the center of an expanding universe, with all of his creation flying inexorably away from him.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself,


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate the human-chimp genome similarities a new thread might be best.

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?

[/ QUOTE ]
More specifically, what evidence would make NR think creationism could not possibly be true? There is a laundry list of items that, if discovered, would force a reasonable person to reject evolution. The fact that creationists do not have a falsifiable position should concern them if they want to pretend they are arguing honestly.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly can make claims about the parts and nature of the Universe that has been observed so far. Thus far, no real sign of God or a creator/designer. There's no reason to believe it, because we have no evidence of it. What I can't do is claim that God exists because we can't see all of the Universe. I'll leave that up to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no argument with this. I was objecting to your claim that Biology tells us that God must have arisen through an evolutionary process. I was simply pointing out that if God exists he likely exists outside of our observable Universe and that Biology can't tell us anything about what is outside the observable Universe. So while you can claim that we have no physical evidence of God, you can't start making scientific claims about him.

Honestly, I don't think that we can even say that Biology tells us much about life outside of our solar system. We have no way of knowing what else is possible because we have such a limited set of observations compared to the size of the observable universe.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK. You can say that God is outside the observable Universe. Fine. God must, therefore, be reaaaaalllly [censored] far away, millions and billions of light years away from the earth, hidden by gas, dust, galaxy clusters and untold space and time. What do you propose is the mechanism by which he interacts with us here on earth? Wormholes? Faster than light communication? Quantum tunneling? Id love to hear an explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're assuming that something which by definition is beyond our understanding must use methods that we can currently understand. You're also assuming that the entire universe (anything and everything that exists) is just like the observable universe and I don't think you can claim this. How do you know that we don't live in a small subsection of the universe that has different physical laws than other parts of the universe? How do you know we don't live in some sort of multiverse?

[ QUOTE ]

Or, if you're a deist, and don't think that God interferes in human affairs, do you think that he was at the center of the big bang? Perhaps he is stuck out there, at the center of an expanding universe, with all of his creation flying inexorably away from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but I don't think it is inconsistent with science to be some sort of deist. If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that what most people refer to as "God" earns all these extra attributes like omniscience and an interest in our lives. If you stripped that stuff away and just called this god "Universe Entity", I don't think atheists would necessarily have a big problem with it.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to call the first cause of our universe God, that's fine with me. I don't think that we have good evidence that God exists, but I also don't think we need to make overzealous claims to prove our point.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that what most people refer to as "God" earns all these extra attributes like omniscience and a hatred of homosexuals . If you stripped that stuff away and just called this god "Universe Entity", I don't think atheists would necessarily have a big problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself,


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to debate the human-chimp genome similarities a new thread might be best.

Bottom line is none of this type evidence is more indicative of evolution than design.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you evaded the point that it's inconsistent of you to accept DNA evidence of common descent between close relatives but not more distant ones.

Fine, I'll start a new thread when I have time.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]
For all the atheists on the forum:
If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist for reasons which have nothing to do with evolution, or any other scientific theory.

The point is that most (if not all) creationists reject evolution based on religious, rather than on scientific grounds. That's true even for those creationists (such as NR) who claim otherwise.

Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
 

[ QUOTE ]

What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly? What would be sufficient?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it's not my hypothesis. What would be sufficient to prove creation to you?