That last post notwithstanding, I do think Larry Moran deserves criticism for one thing. He has been very unfair to Ken Milller.
For example, in this post Moran writes:
The Neville Chamberlain Atheists object when Behe talks about intelligent design but mum’s the word when Ken Miller talks about how God tweaks mutations to get what He wants. Hypocrisy is a strange thing to be proud of.
And in this post we find:
Young Earth Creationsts (YEC’s) and Intelligent Design Creationists (IDiots) are anti-science because they propose explanations of the natural world that conflict with science. But they’re not alone in doing that. Many of the so-called Theistic Evolutionists also promote a version of evolution that Darwin wouldn’t recognize. They are more “theist” than “evolutionist.”
For some reason the Neville Chamberlain team is willing to attack the bad science of a Michael Denton or a Michael Behe but not the equally–and mostly indistinguishable–bad science of leading Theistic Evolutionists. Isn’t that strange?
Ken Miller is one of those leading Theistic Evolutionists.
I am not aware of any instance where Miller argued that God tweaks mutations to get what He wants. In fact, it seems to me that Miller’s view of evolution is almost indistinguishable from that of Richard Dawkins. For example, in Finding Darwin’s God Miller has nothing but praise for Dawkins’ description of evolution in The Blind Watchmaker.
It is likewise absurd to say that Miller’s view of evolution is nearly indistinguishable from Behe’s. Miller believes that God set up the initial conditions for making evolution possible, but then natural forces took over. He is quite clear in his book that the course of evolution was not foreordained by anything God did. This fact is crucial to Miller’s view of Christian theology. He argues that a world in which God constantly intervenes, or one in which the course of evolution was foreordained by God, would also be a world that could not be viewed as truly separate from God Himself. Miller also believes that scientists are right to adhere to methodological naturalism in thier work.
Behe, of course, rejects all of these views.
I would go even further. I don’t know how Miller describes himself, but I would not refer to him as a theistic evolutionist. He is an evolutionist, period. He also believes in God. I have seen no evidence of him mixing science and religion. He claims only that there is no inconsistency between scientific findings and a meaningful Christianity. He does not claim that science provides evidence for religious belief.
I think even these more modest claims are wrong and worthy of criticism. But they do not merit the angry and ill-considered condemnation Moran heaps upon them.