Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read Mr. Miller's testimony & something struck me as odd. For someone who claims to be Christian, he only mentions his faith one time during the whole thing. Now, granted, that wasn't what he was there to testify about, but it was what he said that is strange. He said that he was "a person of faith & a regular churchgoer." Having some sort of a faith & going to church will no more make you a Christian than sitting out in your garage at home makes you a car.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I read Mr. Miller's testimony & something struck me as odd. For someone who claims to be Christian, he only mentions his faith one time during the whole thing. Now, granted, that wasn't what he was there to testify about, but it was what he said that is strange. He said that he was "a person of faith & a regular churchgoer." Having some sort of a faith & going to church will no more make you a Christian than sitting out in your garage at home makes you a car.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he calls himself a Christian my guess is that he believes Jesus was divine and died for our sins. Are you disputing his beliefs just because he didn't expand on them in a talk about evolution? Because he supports evolution at all? What exactly are you saying?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read Mr. Miller's testimony & something struck me as odd. For someone who claims to be Christian, he only mentions his faith one time during the whole thing. Now, granted, that wasn't what he was there to testify about, but it was what he said that is strange. He said that he was "a person of faith & a regular churchgoer." Having some sort of a faith & going to church will no more make you a Christian than sitting out in your garage at home makes you a car.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you questioning his faith? Because he doesn't believe in intelligent design? Because he is not discussing his faith while giving an academic talk? I wasn't aware that being a Christian means that you can't study science and believe in evolution. Believe it or not, not all Christians believe that they must use every public speaking opportunity to proselytize.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read Mr. Miller's testimony & something struck me as odd. For someone who claims to be Christian, he only mentions his faith one time during the whole thing. Now, granted, that wasn't what he was there to testify about, but it was what he said that is strange. He said that he was "a person of faith & a regular churchgoer." Having some sort of a faith & going to church will no more make you a Christian than sitting out in your garage at home makes you a car.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he calls himself a Christian my guess is that he believes Jesus was divine and died for our sins. Are you disputing his beliefs just because he didn't expand on them in a talk about evolution? Because he supports evolution at all? What exactly are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said he was a Christian...that's my point!!!

[tame_deuces]

I think people who use every public opportunity to proclaim their christianity comes of as a horrible cliche. Maybe he wants to put some distance between himself and your average teenage popstar.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
He never said he was a Christian...that's my point!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
He said he was Catholic though, right? All inter-sect squabbling aside, Catholics are Christians, whether you approve of their specifics or not. That is the last thing I will say on that since it is not the point of the thread.

Seems you are fishing for reasons to discount Miller so you have a "why" for not watching the entire talk. Did you watch it yet? I would highly recommend his book too, but I know you don't like "thinker books."

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read Mr. Miller's testimony & something struck me as odd. For someone who claims to be Christian, he only mentions his faith one time during the whole thing. Now, granted, that wasn't what he was there to testify about, but it was what he said that is strange. He said that he was "a person of faith & a regular churchgoer." Having some sort of a faith & going to church will no more make you a Christian than sitting out in your garage at home makes you a car.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, he made a lot more references to his faith and religious belief. I have quoted the excerpts most relevant to his religious beliefs below, excluding some of the philosophical discussions.

Day 1, AM, establishing Ken Miller's credentials:
<ul type="square">Q. I want to talk about one more listing on your curriculum vitae, and that's on Page 7 under General Audience Books. There is one book there that I think has a provocative title, Finding Darwin's God. What's that about?

A. I meant the title to be provocative. This is a general audience book or a trade book, as publishers call it. And one of the experiences that I had over the years appearing in public and talking about evolution is that many people would tell me that no matter how compelling the scientific arguments were that I made in favor of evolution, they were bothered by the fact that it was perfectly obvious that evolution was an inherently atheistic or God-denying theory.

And I'd just sort of shake my head and shrug and say, I don't think so, and point out the fact that I'm a person of faith and a regular churchgoer, and I certainly don't see any conflict. And they would ask me to explain, and I would explain. Another day I would explain, another day I would explain again. And finally I decided, you know, I should probably write a book about this because a lot of people are interested.

So I wrote a book called Finding Darwin's God, and the subtitle of that book I think is more revealing of content, and that is, A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. And what I tried to do in the book was twofold, first to explain why science, sciences and the scientific community, find evolution to be so useful, so valuable, and so compelling as a scientific explanation, and then, secondly, to explain how a person of faith -- although I'm a Roman Catholic, I tried to construe this in a vary broad way so that I would say how a person following any of the great Abrahamic religions could appreciate evolution in the context of their faith. And I hope very much I was successful in doing that.[/list]
Day 1, direct examination:
<ul type="square">
Q. Is evolution antireligious?

A. I certainly don't think so, and I devoted a whole book to arguing why I didn't think it was.

Q. Don't some scientists invoke evolution in their arguments to say that, in fact, science and evolution is antireligious, it's anti-God?

A. Yes, they do. And I can certainly think of any number of specific examples from distinguished evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins or philosophers who have written about evolution like Daniel Dennett or William Paley.

But as I said earlier, it's very important to appreciate that every word that comes forth from the mouth of a scientist is not necessarily science. And every word that one says on the meaning or the importance of evolutionary theory is not necessarily scientific.

Richard Dawkins, for example, has been eloquent in saying that for him, understanding that life and the origin of species has a material cause frees him from the need to believe in a divine being.

I don't know if I've been as eloquent as Richard Dawkins, but I have worked very hard in my own way to say that for me, the notion that we are united in a great chain of being with every other living thing on this planet confirms my faith in a divine purpose and in a divine plan and means that when I go to church on Sunday, I thank the creator for this wonderful and bounteous earth and for the process of evolution that gave rise to such beauty and gave rise to such diversity that surrounds us. Those are my sentiments, in the same way that Dawkins' are his. But I'm not speaking scientifically, and I'm not speaking as a scientist, and that's, I think, the critical distinction.

Q. So you wrote a whole book exploring this intersection between science and faith?

A. That's correct.

Q. And is any of that kind of discussion found in your high school biology textbook?

A. No, of course not.

Q. Why?

A. Because it's not scientific. And I've made the point earlier that just when you say something is not scientific doesn't mean it's not important, doesn't mean it's not true, doesn't mean it doesn't concern something that you really and deeply care about. And I deeply care about my own religious beliefs and my faith, and I also deeply care about science, and I wanted to explain to a general audience how I understand the intersection of those two beliefs, not just to reconcile them, but to confirm and enhance both beliefs.

Now, I believe in that very strongly, but I certainly recognize that my views on this are not science and they are not scientific. My coauthor, Joseph Levine, who also is a religious person, I have to tell you, has different views of faith, belongs to a different faith, and follows a different religious tradition than I do.

Joe and I both have enormous respect for religion. We both believe that the evolutionary theory is fully compatible with our different religious beliefs, but we also recognize that our religious beliefs are not scientific, that they are philosophical, theological, and deeply personal, and, as such, they don't belong in a science curriculum, and they certainly don't belong in a science textbook.[/list]
Day 1, PM, direct examination:
<ul type="square">
Q. The School District argues, you know, it takes a minute to read this statement. I haven't timed it. It takes about a minute to read this statement. What's the big deal? What's the harm in reading this to Dover School District students?

A. That's a very interesting point. And if they raised the issue, what is the harm in reading it, one might well turn around and say, well then why read it in the first place, if it makes so little difference, if it is of so little consequence? Then why have you insisted on doing this and why are you in court today?

The only thing I can infer from turning that question around is that the Dover School Board must think this is enormously important to compose this, to instruct administrators to read it, to be willing to fight all the way to the court. They must think that this performs a very important function.

Now turning it around back to my side of the table, do I think this is important? You bet I think this is important for a couple of reasons. One of which, first of all, as I mentioned earlier, it falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means. Now that's damaging enough.

The second thing is, it is really the first attempt or the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the practice of science, because what this really tells students is, you know what, you can't trust the scientific process. You can't trust scientists. They're pushing this theory. And there are gaps in the theory. It's on shaky evidence. You really can't believe them. You should be enormously skeptical.

What that tells students basically is, science is not to be relied upon and certainly not the kind of profession that you might like to go into. And thirdly, that third paragraph that we haven't talked about very much right now points out that intelligent design, which has implicit endorsement in this statement, because we don't hear that it's just a theory, we don't hear that it's being tested, it sounds like it's a pretty good explanation. It's available. It's good stuff. And students will understand immediately, as anybody does who reads Pandas, that the argument is made on virtually every page of Pandas for the existence of a supernatural creator designer.

And by holding this up as an alternative to evolution, students will get the message in a flash. And the message is, over here, kids. You got your God consistent theory, your theistic theory, your Bible friendly theory, and over on the other side, you got your atheist theory, which is evolution. It produces a false duality. And it tells students basically, and this statement tells them, I think, quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.

What it does is to provide religious conflict into every science classroom in Dover High School. And I think that kind of religious conflict is very dangerous. I say that as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith.

I also want my students to love, understand, respect, and appreciate science. And I'm very proud of the fact that one of my daughters has actually gone on to become a scientist. So by promoting this, I think, this is a tremendously dangerous statement in terms of its educational effect, in terms of its religious effect, and in terms of impeding the educational process in the classrooms in Dover.[/list]
Day 2, cross examination:
<ul type="square">
Q. And you believe that the universe was created by God?

A. I believe that God is the author of all things seen and unseen. So the answer to that, sir, is yes.

Q. In a sense that would make you a creationist using the definition --

A. In the, as I think you and I discussed during the deposition, in that sense any person who is a theist, any person who accepts a supreme being, is a creationist in the ordinary meaning of the word because they believe in some sort of a creation event.

Q. And that would include yourself?

A. That would certainly include me.

Q. And you believe that God coined the laws of physics and chemistry?

A. Well, I have to say that I'm not on the stand as you pointed out yourself, sir, as an expert witness in theology. I can certainly tell you what I believe. And that is as I said before, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry.

Q. And you believe that evolution is a way in which God can bring about His divine plan in this universe?

A. I certainly believe that evolution is a natural process that occurs in our universe, and as such it and all other natural processes fall in -- again I don't want to pretend to be a theologian, but I think it would fall under the purview of what a theologian would call divine providence.

Q. But in terms of your personal beliefs you believe that that is consistent with God's overall plan the way evolution operates?

A. I believe that God is the author of nature, and therefore I believe that things that happen in nature are consistent with God's overall plan, and evolution is a natural process.

Q. And you see evolution as being consistent with your religious beliefs?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Sir, you believe that faith and reason are compatible?

A. I believe not only that they are compatible, but they are complementary.

Q. You agree that if we apply faith and reason correctly as objective and reliable tools for the nature of the world around us, ultimately the conclusions of both should be compatible?

A. One would certainly hope is. If God exists, and both faith and reason are gifts from God, they should complement each other.

Q. You agree then that the rational world of science can be included in faith world of religion, that the two are entirely compatible?

A. Well, actually you phrased that question in sort of a contradictory way. You said, I think you said can one be included within the other, and then you said are they compatible. I'm not sure that neither faith or reason are included within each other. I do very much agree they are compatible.

Q. If you look at your deposition, page 201?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Beginning at the end you make reference to a document written by John Paul II, and I believe that was the encyclical Fides et Ratio, "Faith and Reason?

A. Sir, this is on page 201?

Q. If you read on to page 202, beginning of page 202.

A. Okay. No wonder I couldn't find it. Yes. Oh, okay. In the deposition, I'm not sure if you want me to read it, but I can paraphrase it --

Q. I'd like you to read it --

A. Sure. I'll simply begin on page 202 if that's all right with you.

Q. Yes.

A. "Guiding the relationships between these is pretty well exemplified in that document written by John Paul II that I mentioned earlier called Fides et Ratio, which is to say that the rational world of science can be included in faith world of religion, and that the two are entirely compatible," and I have to say that I don't quite like with the way that I put it in the deposition, which is one of the reasons that I rephrased it, and, you know, in terms of including when one world is included in another it carries the implication that one is subordinate to the other, and I regard as I said in the second part of that is the two as compatible, consistent, and complementary. I don't regard one as included with the other, and therefore I don't actually quite agree with what I said in the deposition. I hope I haven't caused you any trouble.

Q. So you don't ascribe to philosophical naturalism, correct?

A. As I understand philosophical naturalism, it is a doctrine that says that the physical world is all there is, and the only way we have of learning anything about the nature of existence is the scientific way, and if that is what philosophical naturalism means, no, sir, I am not a philosophical naturalist.

Q. Now, when you read the Book of Genesis, you take that to be a spiritually correct account of the origins of our species, correct?

A. I take all of the Bible, including the Book of Job, the Book of Psalms, New Testament, and Genesis to be spiritually correct.

Q. And you find repeatedly verses that say that God commanded the waters of the earth and the soil of the earth to bring forth life, and from an evolutionary point of view you believe that's exactly what happened?

A. Well, I just don't find them. They're there. And the way in which I look at Genesis is that Genesis as I read it, and unfortunately I don't read Hebrew, my co-author does, and he's frequently discussed Genesis with me, but as I read English translations of Genesis I see a series of commands of the Creator to the earth and its waters to bring forth life and, you know, without requiring, my church certainly doesn't, without requiring Genesis to be a literal history, you know, that's pretty much what happens, which is that the earth and its waters and so forth brought forth life.

Q. And that's consistent with evolutionary theory?

A. In the broad figurative poetic sense it is consistent with natural history, which underlies evolutionary theory.[/list]
Day 2, cross examination:
<ul type="square">
Q. And starting at line 3 the question was asked, "When you were writing material on evolution, did you add any information on creationism? And then you answer begins at line 5. Would you please read your answer from line 5 down to line 24, please?

A. Okay. "Answer: No, we did not, and the reason that once again is that there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea of creationism. Now, it's very important to define what one means by creationism. I'm a Roman Catholic for example, so I believe the universe was created, and you could always say that means you're a creationist. But in the modern usage of that language in the United States the word creationist means something quite different, other than a person who simply believes in a supreme being and thinks that there is meaning and order and purpose to the universe.

"In the current usage in the United States creationist is taken to mean someone who thinks that the earth is six to ten thousand years old, that all living organisms were simultaneously created during a very brief period of time, perhaps six days, and that the entire geologic record is an illusion, a column of flood deposition from the single forty day flood that has been misinterpreted for 250 years by the geological sciences as a series, a system of geological ages."[/list]
Day 2, cross examination:
<ul type="square">
Q. And are you obviously have strong religious views you published in "Finding Darwin's God? Are these views published anywhere in your biology textbook?

A. No, sir, of course not.

Q. Are they published in any of your scientific journals?

A. They are not published in any of my scientific papers.

Q. Why not?

A. Because they aren't science. It's very simple.[/list]
In conclusion, Ken Miller said a lot more than just that he goes to church, even during the trial, where most of his testimony was on biological and scientific issues. The fact that he wrote a book on reconciling religious beliefs with evolution suggests that both religion in general and his religion in particular are quite important to him.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Q. Don't some scientists invoke evolution in their arguments to say that, in fact, science and evolution is antireligious, it's anti-God?

A. Yes, they do. And I can certainly think of any number of specific examples from distinguished evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins or philosophers who have written about evolution like Daniel Dennett or William Paley.

But as I said earlier, it's very important to appreciate that every word that comes forth from the mouth of a scientist is not necessarily science. And every word that one says on the meaning or the importance of evolutionary theory is not necessarily scientific.

Richard Dawkins, for example, has been eloquent in saying that for him, understanding that life and the origin of species has a material cause frees him from the need to believe in a divine being.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I spent at least 30 posts trying in vain to establish this simple and obvious fact. This forum really ain't worth the effort.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Q. Don't some scientists invoke evolution in their arguments to say that, in fact, science and evolution is antireligious, it's anti-God?

A. Yes, they do. And I can certainly think of any number of specific examples from distinguished evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins or philosophers who have written about evolution like Daniel Dennett or William Paley.

But as I said earlier, it's very important to appreciate that every word that comes forth from the mouth of a scientist is not necessarily science. And every word that one says on the meaning or the importance of evolutionary theory is not necessarily scientific.

Richard Dawkins, for example, has been eloquent in saying that for him, understanding that life and the origin of species has a material cause frees him from the need to believe in a divine being.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I spent at least 30 posts trying in vain to establish this simple and obvious fact. This forum really ain't worth the effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn. Sneezes by a scientist are not a scientific pronouncement. Yawn.

Are you certain you haven't said more?

luckyme

[m_the0ry]

Evolution certainly isn't 'anti-God', but it definitely is anti-scripture, and in that sense is mostly anti-religious.

Scripture and religion explicitly state that humanity is the prideful product of God and the rest of the animal kingdom was created for mankind's own use. There are obvious conflicts that arise between this religious view of God and evolution, because evolution is founded on common ancestry. At what point on our evolutionary path did we humans become 'special'? Was it when the first bacteria was born? The first mammal? Was it when we developed the large frontal lobe? Societies? Or only after we invented religion?

The Evolutionary Compatibilist wants to redefine our 'specialness' just like a Free Will Compatibilist wants to redefine free will. It's a pretty big concession to admit that man is the product of a mindless algorithm instead of divine intervention.