[_ Old Earth _] Kenneth Miller on The Collapse of Intelligent Design

[brother Paul]

I certainly do not believe one has to accept the theory of ID to be a Christian (some non-Christians certainly believe it) but they do have to believe God created the Universe (and man)...therefore He designed man (however one thinks He brought it about)...

 

[Barbarian]

I certainly do not believe one has to accept the theory of ID to be a Christian

"Theory" applies to scientific ideas, not a new religion. As the wedge document makes clear, the IDers are looking to graft their new faith onto science. This is not what Christians would do. Granted, many IDers are not Christians.

but they do have to believe God created the Universe (and man)

I do not see how an IDer could accept creation, when they are so ideologically tied to design, instead.

.therefore He designed man

God has no need to figure out things. On the other hand, if you're obfuscating to the point that "design" means no more than intent, then ID is meaningless.

Which might explain why all the grand predictions about ID discoveries, and ID labs, came to nothing. It's just a new religious doctrine that has no application in science. If it worked at all, scientists would use it, regardless of anyone's disapproval. But it doesn't work at all, so they won't use it, no matter who presses them to do it. If it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Also, among the intelligent design movement’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Listed among their “Twenty Year Goals” is: “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”


The Discoveroids have failed. Their grand crusade has gone absolutely nowhere. An interesting indicator can be seen in search engine statistics. Check out this history of Google searches on “intelligent design”. It peaked during the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, and it’s been steadily — precipitously — trending downward ever since.


The collapse of interest in the Discoveroids’ “theory” reminds us of the graphic which you see at the start of this post. Were we too dramatic in choosing to post that graphic? Maybe, but one could argue that the intelligent design graphic looks even worse than the one showing the obliteration of Napoleon’s Grande Armée. The Discoveroids have spent millions and they’ve accomplished nothing. Well, they’ve got Louisiana — how wonderful for them.


In contrast, here’s the result of a google trend search on “Sensuous Curmudgeon”. It’s not much, and it certainly looks bad for June, but that month has just begun. Anyway, the trend looks far healthier for us than it does for the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design.


Hey, Casey — if you’re planning on leaving that sinking ship in Seattle, don’t come to us. We don’t have any budget. You may as well stay where you are, as long as it lasts. After that — good luck! Besides, the Discoveroids are the only creationist outfit with political ambitions. When you guys shut down there won’t be much need for what we do here.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-collapse-of-intelligent-design/

If you like watching videos, it's here:

Finally finished watching it. Masterfully presented, I'm definitely a fan on Dr. Kenneth R. Miller now.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps you might like his books:

,

 

[brother Paul]

God has no need to figure out things. On the other hand, if you're obfuscating to the point that "design" means no more than intent, then ID is meaningless.

No that's not what I was referring to. God did not have to "figure things out" He knew exactly what would fulfill His will. He knew exactly what an eye would be for and exactly how it would have to be constructed and exactly what other inter-dependent systems would have to be involved, etc.! His design is perfectly fitted for each of the creatures He made one for.

 

[Barbarian]

"Design", unless you weaken it to mere "intent", means "figuring things out." And that's not what God does. Furthermore, it ties Him to using only necessity as a means of doing His will, in effect limiting Him.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Perhaps you might like his books:

,

Thanks, I was grateful for his tasteful plugs.

I am definitely going to be looking into them.

 

[childeye]

I learned a lot from the video. I am curious to hear how an evolutionist defines the term God.

 

[Barbarian]

I learned a lot from the video. I am curious to hear how an evolutionist defines the term God.

Depends on the "evolutionist." Christians tend to see Him as the Trinity. Jews and Muslims see Him as the God of Abraham. Vedic scientists tend to think of Him as Atman, the eternal soul, seen as identical to Brahman. Atheists tend to define him as not existing. And so on.

 

[childeye]

Depends on the "evolutionist." Christians tend to see Him as the Trinity. Jews and Muslims see Him as the God of Abraham. Vedic scientists tend to think of Him as Atman, the eternal soul, seen as identical to Brahman. Atheists tend to define him as not existing. And so on.

Without a clear definition of the term God, then I don't see how anyone can claim that scientific method and God are at odds. I don't think it's helpful to conflate God with religion.

Is Love/empathy a chemical that evolved per chance? Is life a power that appears by chance? How do we apply scientific method to explore these questions?

 

[Barbarian]

Without a clear definition of the term God, then I don't see how anyone can claim that scientific method and God are at odds. I don't think it's helpful to conflate God with religion.

Science and God can't be at odds. Science has no way of saying anything about God. I can look at the elegance of His creation in detail, because I've learned a little science, but the awe is entirely religious.

Love and empathy have a strong survival value for a social species like us. The problem is, it has a value mainly by preserving our own genes, or those like ours in our relatives. What Christ did, was tell us that it should apply to all humans, even our enemies.

You can investigate kinship selection and the utility of altruism. But it doesn't answer the question; "Who is my neighbor?" And of course, none of this evolved by chance. There are some things that do, but very little of the useful stuff is like that. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

And yes, I'm in awe of a God capable of building a universe that brings forth such wonderful things.

 

[Pizza]

Perhaps you might like his books:

,

"Only a Theory" is available by Kindle. The other one isn't.
At $14, I'm debating spending the money.....

 

[Paloma]

Agree barbarian. Intelligent design is just dead. Put a nail in it already.

 

[Barbarian]

Don't worry; some creationists are already planning the next new name.

 

[brother Paul]

 

[brother Paul]

 

[brother Paul]

 

[Barbarian]

Dean Kenyon (surprisingly for a supposed evolutionist) imagines that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. From Darwin on, that's never been the case. Indeed, Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
(last sentence in The Origin of Species)

And it's an intriguing belief that we can't know anything that happened if we weren't there to directly observe it. Indeed, the finding of predicted transitionals makes such a belief unsupportable, by demonstrable counterexample. Likewise the discovery that DNA gives us the same story that the fossil record does, drives the point home.

And of course, as many, many scientists, starting with Darwin, have pointed out that evolution is consistent with God's creation. So much for videos.

 

[brother Paul]

Kenyon certainly is an Evolutionist and does not imagine any such thing. There is simply a logical conclusion in a theory which negates the possibility of a Creator.

a) either it all evolved (which includes the beginning), OR
b) there is no beginning and the Universe (nature) has always been

Yet you find it "an intriguing belief that we can't know anything that happened if we weren't there to directly observe it", when so much many EBs believe as true could never (nor ever have) be observed. And DNA obviously in many cases ACTUALLY gives no such confirmation, The Fossil record gives one story and the DNA another....(like in our other thread where we actually have in observable fossil history Giraffe/Samotherium; then later than both...Okapi...but their INTERPRETATION of the DNA could be seen to indicate Okapi, Samotherium, Giraffe, i.e., the propaganda)

Kenyon and an ever growing number other highly intelligent SCIENTISTS are just getting honest with the data....

 

[Barbarian]

Kenyon certainly is an Evolutionist and does not imagine any such thing. There is simply a logical conclusion in a theory which negates the possibility of a Creator.

As you know, evolutionary theory does not and cannot negate the possibility of a Creator. As you saw, Darwin attributed the origin of life to the Creator. Odd that an "evolutionist" would not know this.

a) either it all evolved (which includes the beginning), OR
b) there is no beginning and the Universe (nature) has always been

Or, as Darwin suggested, God created the first living things, which evolved as He intended.

Yet you find it "an intriguing belief that we can't know anything that happened if we weren't there to directly observe it",

Yep. Forensics, geology, astronomy, etc. would be impossible if the creationists were right.

And DNA obviously in many cases ACTUALLY gives no such confirmation,

The phylogenies derived from genetic data are almost identical to the classification by Linneaus which produced the same family tree, even though he didn't think organisms evolved. So you've been a bit misled on that. Would you like me to show you?

The Fossil record gives one story and the DNA another....(like in our other thread where we actually have in observable fossil history Giraffe/Samotherium; then later than both...Okapi...but their INTERPRETATION of the DNA could be seen to indicate Okapi, Samotherium, Giraffe, i.e., the propaganda)

You're a bit unclear here. The genetic data seems to be entirely consistent with fossil data. What are you trying to say?

Kenyon and an ever growing number other highly intelligent SCIENTISTS are just getting honest with the data....

As we discussed in the thread on the decline of "Intelligent Design", there are fewer and fewer scientists who doubt the fact of evolution. About 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field have expressed doubts. That's a tiny and shrinking minority.