…and this is a 
Ken Miller, creationist
Category: Creationism
Posted on: September 9, 2006 12:09 PM, by PZ Myers
Red State Rabble has an account of Ken Miller's talk at the University of Kansas.
"Creationists," biologist Ken Miller, told a large, receptive audience at the University of Kansas last night, "are shooting at the wrong target."
Showing a slide of the cover art of "The Lie," an anti-evolution tract by Ken Ham, that prominently features a serpent tempting us with a poisoned apple labeled evolution, Miller said creationists mistakenly take aim at Darwin's theory because they believe science to be anti-religious.
Evolution isn't anti-religious, said Miller. Rather, it's the non-scientific philosophical interpretations some humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, draw from the evidence that challenges the role of religion.
If that account is accurate (I trust Pat Hayes to be accurate, and I also have independent confirmation*), then that was a shot at the majority of biologists, and a declaration of common cause with creationists. They are "shooting at the wrong target," but who is the right target? Why, those humanists, people like Richard Dawkins and anyone who challenges the role of religion. Go get 'em, Kansans! Hound those wicked atheists—they aren't the real scientists, after all. Real scientists believe in God and spirits and magic and etheric essences infused into souls by a phantasmal hominid, just like you do.
Thanks, Dr Ken! I know what side you're on, now…it's you and the creationists, best friends 4ever! Did they promise to let you strike the match at the atheist-burning?
Some of those who take a materialist world view assert that science alone can lead us regarding the nature of existence, or that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having, said Miller. In doing so, these skeptics ignore the limitations of science, just as the creationists ignore the limits of theology.
In fact, many scientists, said Miller, a practicing Catholic, draw the opposite conclusion from the evidence for evolution.
"Faith and reason are both gifts from God," said Miller. "It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."
So all those atheist scientists who have no faith, who actively deny gods…what reason do they have for pursuing science? Hmmm? Why should we believe this immaterial god of yours gives any kind of "gift" at all? There is a non sequitur there: while many scientists do believe in some god or gods, he cannot claim that they draw that conclusion from the evidence—there is no evidence supporting the existence of any deities. Miller should know this.
Neither the philosophical or theological interpretations of the nature of existence, its purpose, meaning, or lack of it, are scientific, said Miller, because they are not testable.
Claims that a god operates in the natural world are not testable. They lack evidence in support. They make no predictions. They guide no hypotheses. They add nothing to any explanations of the natural world. They are contradicted by an absence of evidence.
Claims that gods do not exist or do not interfere in natural processes, and that we must base our interpretations on an assumption that events occur by the action of natural phenomena, however, have been the essential operational basis of all of science, and that has worked incredibly well. Barring the presentation of any positive evidence, a scientist should provisionally reject the existence of a postulated force that does nothing, is indetectable, and that even its proponents argue would exert only actions that are indistinguishable from what would occur in its absence.
The only unscientific opinion being offered is the bizarre idea that a magical being might have miraculously created humans or jump-started the Cambrian explosion, two suggestions Miller makes in his book, Finding Darwin's God.
*The Lawrence Journal-World reports the same thing.
But Miller said the root of the portrayal of religion and evolution as opposites may come from scientists who have an "anti-theistic interpretation of evolution," a stance he disagrees with.
"People of faith are shooting at the wrong target. They should not be shooting at evolution itself," he said.
…
Instead of attacking evolutionary theory, the argument should be against the anti-theistic interpretation of evolution, he said.
I'd say he was pandering to a bunch of bible-walloping yahoos, except I think he honestly believes that nonsense himself. It still doesn't excuse suggesting that everyone needs to start shooting at the godless, and he should realize that what he's doing with that kind of argument is antagonizing a rather large subset of the scientific community.
I've put more shooting at Miller here.
Comments
""Faith and reason are both gifts from God," said Miller."
Uh, if I remember my kooky bible stories correctly, wasn't reason a gift from satan? I believe god wasn't too keen on the whole 'thinking' idea.
Posted by: JD | September 9, 2006 12:22 PM
Ken Ham has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of his Creation Museum, set to open next year. He chortles that opposition from the godless has caused God to bestow further blessings on Ham's ministry and his pseudoscience museum. I think it's just kept God distracted while creationists lose their majorities on school boards and their cases in court. In fact, I hope "God" spends all his time blessing the museum and minding his own business.
Posted by: Zeno | September 9, 2006 12:24 PM
That's too bad, I liked Ken Miller. But to dismiss atheists like that is just unacceptable.
He should realize that he has no impact on the die-hard creationists, and saying crap like that is doing no good except alienating the people who used to like him.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | September 9, 2006 12:37 PM
Posted by: quork | September 9, 2006 12:39 PM
"Barring the presentation of any positive evidence, a scientist should provisionally reject the existence of a postulated force that does nothing, is indetectable, and that even its proponents argue would exert only actions that are indistinguishable from what would occur in its absence."
To put it mildly....
Posted by: oldhippie | September 9, 2006 12:47 PM
Quork said, re Miller's "It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."
Ken Miller needs to make it much clearer that he does not speak for all scientists in this matter.
He did, at the talk. The remark followed one that pointed out the fact that some - many - scientists are people of faith.
He also didn't come across as dismissing or attacking atheists.
The talk is to be broadcast on Kansas Public Radio sometime soon and streamed from the KPR site. Listening to it might provide more insight. As soon as I find out when the broadcast/streaming will occur, I'll provide a link.
Posted by: Kansan | September 9, 2006 12:59 PM
For all the problems with Miller's position, he at least is right that "skeptics ignore the limitations of science, just as the creationists ignore the limits of theology," so long as we take 'skeptics' to refer to those who think science evidence (or its absence) contradicts the hypothesis of a diety. Skeptics of the traditional philosophical sort, on the other hand, are keenly aware of the limits of both science and theology, and know the difference between lack of evidence and contradiction.
Posted by: bob koepp | September 9, 2006 12:59 PM
That's an indictment of philosophy and theology, not of science.
The authoritarian mindset rides again. If you need someone else, divine or otherwise, to tell you what the meaning of your life is, your life is ipso facto meaningless.
Posted by: Dan | September 9, 2006 1:11 PM
I think you're overreacting, PZ. Miller doesn't say that atheist scientists are not real scientists. And I don't see him as declaring war on atheist scientists. It seems to me that what he is saying to creationists is this: if you want to argue against atheism then argue against atheism, not against evolution.
Still, it is annoying the way he tends to state his unsubstantiated (and highly questionable) opinions as if they were facts.
Posted by: Richard Wein | September 9, 2006 1:15 PM
t s pprnt tht PZ s rdy t hp scrn n nyn wh ds nt fllw th prty ln.
Pr PZ ds nt knw th dffrnc btwn scnc nd c ptng scnc t pmp prsnl vws.
Sr, th rght ds tht.
S d PZ.
Posted by: Oscar | September 9, 2006 1:15 PM
I do not share Ken Miller's view of the world. I do not, however, have any difficulty in distinguishing his views from that of creationists. He at least respects the search for knowledge in nature. That he also searches elsewhere makes me a little nervous, but not as anxious as persons who seem impervious to common observations, and are inspired by miraculous tales.
Posted by: louis homer | September 9, 2006 1:35 PM
Skeptics of the traditional philosophical sort, on the other hand, are keenly aware of the limits of both science and theology, and know the difference between lack of evidence and contradiction.
To what category of skeptic do I belong if I think you should believe things for which there is evidence, and not believe things for which there is a lack of evidence? It seems to me important to know the difference between having a reason to disbelieve something, and having no reason to believe it in the first place.
Posted by: Max Udargo | September 9, 2006 1:36 PM
This is accurate:
So is this one:
Or would you claim that science has somehow produced complete knowledge of everything, knowledge that is accessible to everyone all the time? I'm an atheist with a materialist world view and I find I need all sorts of knowledge that science can not yet provide, likely will not provide in my lifetime, and might never provide. Will it rain a month from now? Science can't tell me. Which of the three candidates for county supervisor should get my vote? Science is of no help.
The choice is not a binary one between scientific knowledge and supernatural inspiration. There are other sorts of knowledge as well. I often get the impression here, however, that anyone who speaks to the limitations of science is lumped into the religious lunatic category.
Posted by: AndyS | September 9, 2006 1:39 PM
It`s a frigging shame that these days one cannot say anything anymore. "are shooting at the wrong target."...when really what he tried to convey is to show some frigging respect for the bible guys: Blow up some subways in the name of god - get active instead of just letting this guys battle it out all verbally. This way christianity is never gonna succeed against those monstrous cattle of infidels.
Now we both wanna be good christians right, and the only way todo that is to be true to the bible, right - you have been hammered that all your life long into your little dimmed brain, right. I hope i don`t have to reapeat that over and over again. The worst sin which is unforgivable is to not believe into the holy spirit - the only unforgivable sin! Now if you life on the planet with deadly sinners, do you really believe god is gonna work out amongst those cattle who is a sinner or not, so go and cleanse yourself of these infidels around you - read some medieval books on how it`s done.
Posted by: Holy-Christian | September 9, 2006 1:42 PM
Miller's argumentation fall back on himself, since he likes to speculate, poorly, from science to teology.
If he really said "the argument should be against the anti-theistic interpretation of evolution" I think he is shooting at the wrong target. As I read him, Dawkins is agnostic on science, but anti-theistic on religion. "The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?" ( http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.shtml )
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | September 9, 2006 1:50 PM
Just for the record, there is a demonstrable difference between:
smith believes not-x,
and
smith does not believe x
Ignore at the peril of talking nonsense.
Posted by: bob koepp | September 9, 2006 1:52 PM
Bob, I must certainly disgree with your endorsement of the claim that "...skeptics ignore the limitations of science...". Evidence, please. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle might be described as a limitation of science, but it does not follow that skeptics ignore it. On the other hand, if there is no conceivable to way to detect or experience something that must, by definition, be accepted solely on faith, then I am pretty comfortable with the argument that ignoring it is justified (this could encompass an infinite number of possibilities). Unless one can show that those mysteries of life and creation are not simply unknown but CANNOT be known, you are tilting at windmills. If history is any teacher, irrational appeals to deities to explain what puzzles us in 2006 is likely to look foolish and shortsighted in fifty years.
Posted by: drb | September 9, 2006 1:54 PM
The worst sin which is unforgivable is to not believe into the holy spirit - the only unforgivable sin!
I don't believe in the Holy Spirit. So we're done here, right? Even Jesus can't help me now. I have committed an unforgivable sin, as has every other person who has asserted non-Christian beliefs. Jesus can't save us. We're done.
I'm glad that's over. We can all move on now.
Posted by: Max Udargo | September 9, 2006 1:55 PM
Just for the record, there is a demonstrable difference between:
smith believes not-x,
and
smith does not believe x
Ignore at the peril of talking nonsense.
As an atheist, I don't believe in God. I do not believe x. I also don't believe in unicorns. Now, if tomorrow evidence of God or unicorns is found, I'll adjust my views accordingly. You often hear it said that you can't prove a negative. So, strictly speaking, no scientifically-minded person believes "not-x" with regard to anything.
The question remains, why believe something for which there is no evidence? There are lots of reasons, none of them good.
Posted by: Max Udargo | September 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Richard Wein, creationists are all a bunch of fundamentalists who cannot come to peace unless everyone around them, at least the posterity they are assigned to believe the same.
I have no problem with creationists per se or fundamentalists for that manner, i have however a problem if that insanity is going on generation after another, by religious fanatics who cease the innate urge of any newborn to question and explore the world by gradually (neuro)associaiting this intrinsically rewarding (good) emotion with a bad one.
As in this case, on the university ground, Miller can argue whatever he wants - the students have formed personalities, are learning by textbooks, writing whatever the educator wants to see and that`s about it - they won`t adapt the same feeble minded idiotic ideals as their self-declared supreme master Miller.
Did it ever occur to you that religion, and those islamic funadamentalists surrounding Israel are all the very same, that is religion, sects whatever their name are all based upon exploiting the same neural development and brain functions that any sound human shows.
The battle may be different but religion itself is aboout friction. Religion would be boring as hell if you would have thousands of feeble minded clones without anyone arguing against anything anymore - but that is the actual ideal of any religion.
The problem with religious folks is that they don`t get that all of religion and all of their gods would die out (statistically speaking) in the 21st century if they wouldn`t brain wash their lil kiddies - and some of them religious folks go a step further and go make luv to the nice lil kiddies. Go figure if you experience how much influence and power you have over a growing kid, then it is only a small step to teach them about a new god, a manifested one that can be actually touched and even sucked and looks a lot like the male genitalia - of course thankfuly we god christians will make sure the kid will never ever have a sound biology lession in his live as to not be confused about his worlds and all those other (false)gods and prophets around it.
Posted by: Peter Salmon | September 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Right now C-Span2 has a Discovery Institute discussion for "Traipsing into Evolution", which is supposed to explain why the Dover decision is wrong. I was going to try to be brave and watch it but this Logan Gage guy looks like the typical young Republican, too busy with more important things than going into the army. It's John West (who is apparently an great biologist, he has a PhD in government and all) and Casey Luskin, a "scientist (snicker) with the Discovery Institute". This is too much, I just had lunch! It's going to be about an hour and a half if anyone has a stronger stomach than I do, meaning that it will be over at about 2:30 Central time.
Posted by: Mena | September 9, 2006 2:06 PM
Posted by: horrobin | September 9, 2006 2:06 PM
Barring the presentation of any positive evidence, a scientist should provisionally reject the existence of a postulated force that does nothing, is indetectable, and that even its proponents argue would exert only actions that are indistinguishable from what would occur in its absence.
I think most Christians would argue that the notion of God gives them comfort, that they can detect God's presence and that it changes the way they live their lives. The problem is that you can't measure any of those things with a pH meter.
Posted by: Andy Groves | September 9, 2006 2:11 PM
Miller makes the typical strawman arguments of religious believers so locked within their worldview that they cannot conceive of any other. Hey Ken,
1) Limitations of scientific knowledge != non-fraudulence of theology.
2) Atheism != lack of appreciation for human endeavors other than science.
3) And for damn sure, "faith" is NOT the reason for pursuing science, certainly not for the great majority of scientists. Speak for yourself, Ken.
By the way, for the benefit of Bob Koepp, Smith should believe not-X (provisionally, as one should believe anything) whenever a) X is inherently implausible and indeed (as with the idea of a Creator- where'd he come from?) question-begging; and b) there is no credible evidence for X. Furthermore, Smith should indeed weigh scientific evidence strongly in deciding about the plausibility of X; for example, it has become possible since 1859 to explain the organized complexity of living things scientifically, and that is an important fact to take into account when weighing claims that a Designer in the sky did the job. Scepticism does not mean being so open-minded that one's brain falls out one's ear, though I note that Bob's scepticism, sadly, is typically of precisely that kind.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 2:11 PM
Just bounced here from PT. With regard to Miller siccing creationists on humanists, I figure they're going to be attacking us anyway - it might as well be from a position that's slightly less insane.
I figure that theistic evolutionists et al are probably a better source of converts to humanism than the real nutjobs - at least they make some pretense of thinking critically.
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 9, 2006 2:14 PM
"Faith and reason are both gifts from God," said Miller. "It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."
Ken Miller: massive generalizations a specialty.
I'm tired of the words "faith" and "reason" and would like to see them banned from the English language.
Posted by: George | September 9, 2006 2:15 PM
Nobody is arguing that science can and will explain everything. Nor are they arguing that the only way to make a decision about what kind of breakfast cereal to eat is by tapping some CSF and running it through a mass-spec to get The Answer.
Pointing out that we don't know everything is not evidence for God. Miller knows about God of the Gaps arguments -- so why does he use them so blithely?
Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science. Similarly, science is anti-religion because it rejects revealed knowledge and faith as a legitimate way to understand the world. Those are the battle-lines, not disagreements on the conclusions, but different ways of figuring things out. If aliens dropped in tomorrow and showed us documentation for an intervention that created Homo sapiens 2 million years ago, that would vindicate the conclusions of ID, but not the methods, and science, by relying on and requiring evidence, would still be correct. Too many people fail to realize that science is measured by how you know something, not what specific answer you've arrived at.
Miller doesn't seem to appreciate that, and is declaring himself to be on the same side as the creationists -- where faith trumps evidence.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 2:17 PM
"Go get 'em, Kansans! Hound those wicked atheists--they aren't the real scientists, after all."
As much as I hate to say it, your criticism of these sorts of issues is generally pretty sloppy, and, frankly, become deeply unfair when you start putting words in someone elses mouth. In this case, you are misrepresenting what Miller said. He didn't say that Dawkins isn't a scientist: he said that philosophical declarations aren't themselves scientific or part of science and the opinions of Dawkins on religion shouln't be lumped into what "evolution theory" is or involves.
And guess what: on this, he's right, and you're wrong. If you hold that there is no evidence for god, that such claims are totally unconvincing, that science offers no support to the claims made by the religious that's one thing. But if you declare that there is no god and science can prove it, then you've both foolishly assumed the burden of proof and probably jumped outside the scope of what science has to say all in one move.
"Claims that gods do not exist or do not interfere in natural processes, and that we must base our interpretations on an assumption that events occur by the action of natural phenomena, however, have been the essential operational basis of all of science, and that has worked incredibly well."
You're confusing things here. You are trying to conflate the principles that delimit the scope of science with the idea that those principles are themselves proof of anything. We carefully stake out the territory of science to what we can see and detect and test because it would become pure nonsense if we did not (and DOES become pure nonsense in the hands of religious people who try to introduce god into their equations). But that doesn't mean that science "makes the claim that god does not exist." You aren't going to find that declaration in a science textbook, because it's neither necessary nor supportable.
"It still doesn't excuse suggesting that everyone needs to start shooting at the godless, and he should realize that what he's doing with that kind of argument is antagonizing a rather large subset of the scientific community."
Right, so according to you, you get to ridicule him and his beliefs and present arguments as to why he is stupid, but if he responds, then he's "shooting at the godless." Sounds real fair to me.
Again, what he's saying is "yes, there are scientists out there that attack religion. But their anti-theistic views are their own, not those of science or evolutionary theory, and if you attack/respond to those views, don't confuse yourself by thinking that you are having a scientific debate over evolution itself."
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 2:23 PM
"Quork said, re Miller's "It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."
Ken Miller needs to make it much clearer that he does not speak for all scientists in this matter.
He did, at the talk. The remark followed one that pointed out the fact that some - many - scientists are people of faith."
If that's so, then that's the only part of why PZ quoted that I had a problem with, and that then deals with it pretty well. Some scientists are people of faith, and their faith is a motivation for what they do. I don't share that faith, but it's simply undeniable that this is true and I don't begrudge them it as long as it doesn't creep into the work they claim is scientific.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 2:27 PM
Ah, would that it were so simple, Max. They never stop trying. Jesus will spank them for eternity if they don't keep bothering people about him.
Posted by: Stogoe | September 9, 2006 2:28 PM
"...that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having..."
I'm still having a hard time with this one, as I see it around a lot. In all of my scientific research and readings in philosophy, I still haven't quite figured out the argument in favour of ALTERNATIVES TO EVIDENCE. Does anyone (for my benefit) have any suggestions as to what these alternatives may be? And what evidence there is as to their value (OOPS! That may be rather paradoxical...)?
Posted by: carlman23 | September 9, 2006 2:31 PM
Neither Dawkins nor I have ever claimed to have proof of the nonexistence of any gods.
I have not said that I've presented "proofs". I'm not a mathematician.
Curiously, I have not asserted that science claims that god doesn't exist, nor that that declaration can be (or should be) found in a science textbook.
Got any more strawmen?
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 2:32 PM
Hmmm, since theistic evolutionists are also a large subset of the scientific community; should Dr. Myers censor himself, for example on these pages, for fear of antagonising them ?
The answer seems to be No, for both sides.
And regarding the antagonism and stuff, the script calls for both of you to unite to save education, when the next monkey trial comes around.
Oh, wait, "someone" just called Dr. Miller a creationist.
Ooh, is this a schism among the evil evolutionists, and do we get our own big tent too, like the YECs and the OECs ?
Posted by: Mirror, Mirror | September 9, 2006 2:32 PM
"Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science."
Baseball invokes a set of rules antithetical to the playing of soccer. That doesn't make baseball "anti-soccer." The first principles of science aren't themselves provable or scientific. They are assumed. They are the rules of the game if you want to play the science game, and you can't claim be part of the game (or its enviable power and results) unless you play by the rules. But nowhere do the rules say that they are they only legimate game in town. You believe that. Heck, I believe that. But those beliefs aren't science.
"Similarly, science is anti-religion because it rejects revealed knowledge and faith as a legitimate way to understand the world."
No, it rejects those methods as being _scientific_. Small but very important difference.
"Miller doesn't seem to appreciate that, and is declaring himself to be on the same side as the creationists -- where faith trumps evidence."
In a word, bullshit. That's not what he's saying and you're just stuffing straw men in his mouth.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 2:33 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 2:36 PM
I have no problem with individuals, like Ken Miller, going to church and believing whatever they want. Miller is not merely exercising his right to religious beliefs, though -- he's misrepresenting science in a public venue. "Faith and reason are both gifts from God" is an anti-scientific statement. He has not arrived at that conclusion by observation, experiment, or reason. It is the product of dogma and tradition.
I will repeat myself.
Claims that a god operates in the natural world are not testable. They lack evidence in support. They make no predictions. They guide no hypotheses. They add nothing to any explanations of the natural world. They are contradicted by an absence of evidence.
Miller has left science behind when he babbles Catholic dogma. Atheists have NOT left science behind when they demand that claims about cause should be provisionally rejected if they lack supporting evidence...but people freak out and have an emotional reaction when the name of that postulated cause is "god".
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 2:42 PM
"I'd say he was pandering to a bunch of bible-walloping yahoos, except I think he honestly believes that nonsense himself."
Honestly, I think he sees the writing on the wall and like religion after the world was proven round, that the world was proven not to be at the center of the universe or even of our own solar system, these people are trying to rationalize it in their own minds and make it work within their faith. Otherwise they have to confess they lived their lives as complete fools.
After Dover, after Ohio and after Kansas this guy and some others are realizing that once again they have attached themselves to yet another sinking ship. And with the way republicans appear to be on the out this upcoming election(a theory I do not believe in the slightest) Miller is trying to save face.
MYOB'
.
Posted by: MYOB | September 9, 2006 2:42 PM
"The first principles of science aren't themselves provable or scientific. They are assumed."
While this is true, one can get an idea of the likelihood of the validity on the assumption based on the available evidence generated by such an assumption (I believe this is Bayesian probability):
Scientific knowledge has provided us with understanding, technology, healthcare etc... Religion, er, not so much. It's ridiculous to assume that evidence would suggest that ALL assumptions are equally as valid.
Posted by: carlman23 | September 9, 2006 2:44 PM
"Neither Dawkins nor I have ever claimed to have proof of the nonexistence of any gods."
You're just seizing on a particular literalistic intrepretation of the word proof to avoid the point. Miller argues that the anti-religious arguments offered by yourself and Dawkins are not themselves scientific. Either he's right, or you think they are. You tell me.
"I have not said that I've presented "proofs". I'm not a mathematician."
Again, this is a lateral dodge. Your whole argument is based on the premise that claims that there are no gods are scientific while claims that there are are not.
"Curiously, I have not asserted that science claims that god doesn't exist, nor that that declaration can be (or should be) found in a science textbook. Got any more strawmen?"
Give me a break. Here is what you said:
"Claims that gods do not exist or do not interfere in natural processes, and that we must base our interpretations on an assumption that events occur by the action of natural phenomena, however, have been the essential operational basis of all of science"
It certainly seems a heck of a lot like you are saying that "Claims that gods do not exist or do not interefere in natural processes" have been (and presumably are) "the essential operational basis of all of science." If that isn't what you are saying, perhaps you could rephrase it so that it doesn't say exactly that in plain English.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 2:50 PM
You are on a field with a diamond and a set of 4 bases and a central mound. There are no goals. The field is not rectangular. There are 9 players on each side, they are carrying mitts and bats, and the ball is much, much smaller than a soccer ball. You can postulate that there exists somewhere a hypothetical soccer field with eleven players on a side, but in the current situation, the rules of baseball hold.
Similarly, we find ourselves in a world and a universe with a set of rules we've managed to discern with the tools of science. These rules are more than an arbitrary game -- they seem to be unbreakable constraints on our very existence. Now if you want to imagine another universe with different rules and an omnipotent deity somewhere, go ahead. Thought experiments like that are 'allowed' under our constraints. It doesn't change the fact that your imagined universe doesn't seem to affect our actual physical universe in any measurable way.
You don't get to claim that science is just a language game unless you're also arguing that the world we live in is also just a game.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 2:53 PM
PZ said...
"Claims that a god operates in the natural world are not testable."
Erm, wrong, and this is important.
Proposition: No god is detectable, even if that god exists.
If god operates in the natural world, then his/her/its/their actions will be detectable.
Since they are not, and the theists/deists are invited to prove me wrong, teh default postion is to assume the non-existence of any god, until contrary evidence shows.
Posted by: G. Tingey | September 9, 2006 2:53 PM
"Faith and reason are both gifts from God" is an anti-scientific statement. "
Again, bullshit. It's certainly not a scientific statement, but calling is anti-scientific is just poisoning the well.
"Miller has left science behind when he babbles Catholic dogma."
Cite for where he claims Catholic dogma is scientific? Everything I've seen of his writing regarding religion has been presented as trying to rethink Catholic belief so that it fits scientific evidence, not the other way around.
"Atheists have NOT left science behind when they demand that claims about cause should be provisionally rejected if they lack supporting evidence..."
Are you claiming that THIS is what Miller is talking about? But that certainly doesn't seem to be what he is talking about. As far as I can tell, he's talking about explicitly anti-religious arguments (like: faith is stupid, religion is stupid and evil, etc.), not mere "show me" skepticism.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 2:56 PM
Plunge, you can avoid a lot of wasted verbiage by providing us with good reasons for believing that gods exist and interfere in natural processes. If you haven't got any, PZ is right and your're full of crap. Because indeed, science cannot function if the the natural phenomena it observes are the products of arbitrary interventions by sentient being(s)rather than lawlike regularities. If you don't understand something so basic, you have no business bloviating about science.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 2:56 PM
"Faith and reason are both gifts from God," said Miller.
I want someone to tell me why this sentence isn't completely meaningless.
Posted by: George | September 9, 2006 2:58 PM
"Since they are not, and the theists/deists are invited to prove me wrong, teh default postion is to assume the non-existence of any god, until contrary evidence shows."
No, this is like, basic doxastic logic. The default position is universal skepticism, not "assume not X for every X we cannot prove." If someone shows me an box and tells me that there is a spoon inside, my default position is "I have no reason to think that: why should I believe it?" not "we should assume that's wrong until you can show otherwise." The absurdity of that becomes obvious when another person walks up and says "there is no spoon in that box." What is the default position then? The exact OPPOSITE of the previous default position? We assume that there IS a spoon in the box? That makes no sense.
~BX is different from B~X. They aren't logically equivalent. Science refuses to deal with claims that can't be tested. That's not the same thing as saying "science assumes there is no god."
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 3:01 PM
It seems to me that whether or not one regards Miller's quotes from the Kansas presentation as inflammatory depend a lot on a person's context. I've attended a Miller Power Point. It was pretty similar by accounts, a post-Dover assessment of the state of affairs. He talked rapidly, skillfully and covered a huge amount of ground in 90 minutes. You can see why he's so fabulously successful in debate.
At any rate, in person he's very charming, not the least mean-spirited, and he probably didn't come across as insensitive to skeptical folk in person as he might appear in a few quotes. He was genial to the point of fault, apparently, in an exchange with Dr. Dawkins at AMH last year, for example. The line about 'shooting at the wrong target' was probably a rhetorical stubbing of the toe at this particular event and probably evoked associations not intended.
As a theist who has only of late come to appreciate the oppression experienced by many atheists, I have to admit I might've said something thoughtless like that a few years back without meaning anything by it. I would encourage my friends who are non-believers to give Dr. Miller the benefit of the doubt on the occasional turn of phrase, but of course hold his feet to the fire where you think he is overstating his case.
Speaking of which, I think I'll drop him a line to that effect myself. All of us who care about science education should realize that there are bigger fish to fry that scientists who may hold metaphysical positions differing from our own.
Sincerely...Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | September 9, 2006 3:04 PM
Steve: "Plunge, you can avoid a lot of wasted verbiage by providing us with good reasons for believing that gods exist and interfere in natural processes."
No, I don't. I have no such obligation, and this is a particularly absurd request given that I am an outspoken atheist. Apparently, you are so tribal that you cannot imagine that anyone who isn't a theist would dare challenge you on your theological version of smear the queer.
"Because indeed, science cannot function if the the natural phenomena it observes are the products of arbitrary interventions by sentient being(s)rather than lawlike regularities."
Please cite where anyone is claiming that science should. Miller doesn't claim this. I don't claim this. You've completely missed the point of the entire conversation.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 3:05 PM
Plunge, show me a church built on the "faith" that it will stay upright in a high wind or earth quake, and which was built without scientific consideration of sound building practices, and then tell me the two sides can be compared to sports events and merely have "different rules". Your analogy is bullshit. A better one would be to try to claim that fanatical Islam isn't anti-soccer, despite the tendancy of such groups to equate sporting events with westernism and a fall from Islam. The only side playing games here is the religious, and the game they play is, "Delude as many as possible and I will win a prize!" If a church collapses in the world of the religious, its business as usually, and all part of God's plan. If a building collapses in the "real" world, there are consequences, the presumption is that someone seriously screwed up, or some unknown, but important factor was overlooked, and that *we* need to make plans to prevent it happening a second time. You die for/in religion and its a reason to ring balls, release baloons and celebrate like someone just made a field goal. Die in the scientific world and its tragic, people want to know why it happened, and the celebration is deferred to when/if someone figures out how to keep it from happening to someone else. *We don't treat things like a @%$@$@# game show.*
Posted by: Kagehi | September 9, 2006 3:06 PM
The god defined by Miller is NOT testable, I should say. His God is an omnipotent being who can do anything but consciously avoids interfering in the universe in a way that we can detect.
Plunge, here's the simple, plain English version.
1. "My invisible pink unicorn loves me." ← not scientific. A child can believe it if she wants.
2. "There is no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists, the description is internally contradictory, and magic unicorns do not have any detectable influence on human lives." ← a reasonable scientific conclusion.
3. "I have PROOF that there are no invisible pink unicorns!" ← not scientific, and it's the usual misrepresentation brought up against atheists.
Trust me. I know the difference between 2 and 3. So does Richard Dawkins. So does every atheist I've ever talked to.
The fact that 3 is an unscientific assertion does not mean that 1 is a valid position. 2 should be the default, until someone finds evidence of some sort of the activities of invisible pink unicorns. Got any?
Do you think Ken Miller has some?
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 3:06 PM
"The default position is universal skepticism"
I may agree, but universal skepticism does not mean that we have to ignore all other relevant human knowledge every single time we are presented with a new proposition. If someone says "there's a spoon in the box", I'll be more likely to believe them if the box is marked "Spoons". Continuous lack of evidence for the presence of deities (and continuous debunking of deist claims) as well as continued advancement of scientific knowledge should influence how we weigh our skepticism...
Posted by: carlman23 | September 9, 2006 3:07 PM
Miller is a scumbag (siding with the fudies), and a deluded fool to boot!
Posted by: JJP | September 9, 2006 3:10 PM
George wrote:
"Faith and reason are both gifts from God," said Miller.
I want someone to tell me why this sentence isn't completely meaningless.
Sorry, George, can't help you. Only you can decide if it's meaningful, since it implies a belief in God. If you think the latter is absent, nonsensical or incoherent you'll find the statement much the same. If you don't, you won't. The best I can do for the former case is to point you to the fact that some hold the latter, and what that means for them.
As for whether the concept of God is nonsensical or incoherent? Well, of course it is. Credo quia absurdum.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | September 9, 2006 3:10 PM
Plunge, universal sceptism is not a sensible default position; indeed it has, perversely, repeatedly served in the history of philosophy as the starting point for a (doomed) search for a certain foundation for knowledge, desperately sought by the philosopher as an antidote to the vertigo induced by dangling over the pit of scepticism. From Descartes on, the playing of this little game has resulted in a great deal of lamentable nonsense. There is always (as, quite obviously, in your case) a religious or quasi-religious seeker of certainty lurking behind the mask of the pretended thoroughgoing sceptic.
And you still haven't come to terms with the point that science could not successfully be practiced in a universe in which phenomena resulted from the arbitrary intervention of gods rather than the operation of natural laws. Really, the only reason it's possible for there to be scientists who are religious believers is the well-known human talent for embracing cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 3:11 PM
That idiot Miller needs to read David Hume, IMHO, but I guess he will not as it might contradict his favorite fairy tale.
Posted by: JJP | September 9, 2006 3:12 PM
"Similarly, we find ourselves in a world and a universe with a set of rules we've managed to discern with the tools of science."
I sense circular reasoning coming on...
"These rules are more than an arbitrary game -- they seem to be unbreakable constraints on our very existence. Now if you want to imagine another universe with different rules and an omnipotent deity somewhere, go ahead."
No I won't, thanks. But neither will I claim that it is necessary to outright deny or reject alternatives or untestables in order to practice science. Not even because I am friendly to them: first and foremost because I have no particular obligation to even address those alternatives in the first place unless they can prevent some compelling reason for me to do so.
"Thought experiments like that are 'allowed' under our constraints. It doesn't change the fact that your imagined universe doesn't seem to affect our actual physical universe in any measurable way."
But measurability is precisely the standard of science. You can't use a standard to demonstrate the absolute efficacy of the standard. Look: logical positivism was tossed out a long time ago. Science is best defended as pragmatic, not ontologically "true." Verifiability isn't verifiable.
"You don't get to claim that science is just a language game unless you're also arguing that the world we live in is also just a game."
Now you're just mixing methaphors: the "game" is the epistemology, not the reality (i.e. how we attain and verify knowledge, rather than some metaphysical absolute of truth). One doesn't have to deny science or the reality of the world in order to assert that there are other realities and even realities in this world that resist scientific detection. You can I and be utterly unconvinced of those claims, but it's not inherently "anti-scientific" to assert them. The premises of science do not reject them, they rule them outside the scope of what someone claiming the mantle of science can say scientifically.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 3:15 PM
If the box is shaken and doesn't rattle; if it's the wrong size or shape for a spoon; if an x-ray reveals no dense object inside; if the response of the advocate for spoonism is to constantly revise his claims (it's an invisible, immaterial spoon transparent to x-rays and packed in aerogel to prevent movement), then it's reasonable to say "No, there is no spoon in there." In fact, it's contrary to the point of absurdity to insist further that there is a spoon and to also write books rationalizing the indetectability of spoons, and accusing the people who have weighed the available evidence and concluded that there is no spoon of being unscientific. The aspoonists are the ones actually basing their conclusion on the science!
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 3:16 PM
Steve LaBonne : I believe this statement to be very remote from the truth.
Me : Deferring to your beliefs, I'll retract the "large" from my post, the point's the same anyway.
Intrestingly, Wikipedia counts 16 (fairly well known ?) people as being theistic evolutionists here.
There just may be more of them.
On the other hand, there were no steves on that list.......
Posted by: Mirror, Mirror | September 9, 2006 3:19 PM
According to Boswell, Hume once remarked that 'when he heard a man was religious, he concluded he was a rascal, though he had known some instances of very good men being religious.'
We all know theistic evolutionist is incoherent drivel. Rascals like Miller will always come down on the side of religion when pushed. Theistic evolution, the idea that an omnipotent God would need to use random mutations and natural selection to produce life is as about as meaningful of a concept as that of a square circle. Natural selection necessarily means that nothing outside of nature is necessary to explain it. Darwin's theory was and is revolutionary in part because it shows that humanity is not at the center of creation, and not its purpose either.
Perhaps little more than this muddle offered by the cognitively challenged (i.e. the 'faithful'). It appears to offer strongest corroboration for the biologist William Provine's infamous rule: if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, "you have to check your brains at the church-house door."
Posted by: JJP | September 9, 2006 3:19 PM
Exactly. So show me the pragmatic aspects of believing a deity makes it rain or gave australopithecines a shot of soul juice.
The ultimate determinant of whether something is scientific is whether it is useful. It is useful to dismiss the idea of a prankster god tinkering with our experiments. It is useless to do as Miller does, inventing complex entities hovering over our petri dishes, but voluntarily doing nothing.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 3:21 PM
Thus, the proposition you claim to defend, and that of PZ which you condemn, are certainly equivalent in the real world, and indeed really become logically equivalent if "religion" is defined in a non-Pickwickian way. You're simply generating a lot of hot air without actually saying anything.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 3:22 PM
A nitpick:
Nothing is ever contradicted by a lack of evidence. However, something should not be thought of, or taught, as science until there is testable evidence for it.
What drives me crazy about creationism, and it's dirty, sneaky twin ID, is that they claim to be about capital-t Truth. Science don't play that game.
Science is about building a model, the best model you can. It's a model that's supposed to reflect some objective reality, and that's supposed to be useful in some way (even if only by allowing you to predict what's likely to happen next). But Newton's theory of gravitation wasn't just limited; it was wrong about several things. Everyone knew that when Einstein came along and provided a better model... but Newton's theory was taught because it was the best model we had. Then, Einstein's theory was taught. Someday, a better model might come along and then, that will be the one that's taught.
Even when you know that something isn't a perfect represenation of reality, if it's the best model you have that accounts for all observable evidence, that's what science says you should use.
When there is no observable, measurable evidence for a thing, science can't say it doesn't exist... but it does say "why worry about it?"
And, when trying to understand (and model!) the physical world we live in, why would you worry about things that don't have any measurable effect? They're not going to change your model at all; the could only change your model if they had some measurable effect. It'd be a waste of time.
Posted by: John Palmer | September 9, 2006 3:22 PM
Steve: "Plunge, universal sceptism is not a sensible default position indeed it has, perversely, repeatedly served in the history of philosophy as the starting point for a (doomed) search for a certain foundation for knowledge, desperately sought by the philosopher as an antidote to the vertigo induced by dangling over the pit of scepticism. From Descartes on, the playing of this little game has resulted in a great deal of lamentable nonsense. There is always (as, quite obviously, in your case) a religious or quasi-religious seeker of certainty lurking behind the mask of the pretended thoroughgoing sceptic."
You can make baseless accusations all you want about me or my beliefs. But given that you haven't read the thread and have no idea what my position is or what we are talking about, your accusations carry little weight, and a lot of goofiness.
"And you still haven't come to terms with the point that science could not successfully be practiced in a universe in which phenomena resulted from the arbitrary intervention of gods rather than the operation of natural laws."
That's right, it couldn't. It's mind-boggling that a literate person could think I'd said anything otherwise.
"Really, the only reason it's possible for there to be scientists who are religious believers is the well-known human talent for embracing cognitive dissonance."
Or, because, science is modest and pragmatic, not metaphysical bullshit and all encompassing.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Also, Plunge. Most of your points are tilting at non-existent windmills, since no one is exactly in disagreement with you, but there are serious flaws in your analogies and a presumption of the stance of people on the subject that goes way beyond any reasonable stance. Just because I deny the existence of every goofy god any fool have ever described, precisely because all evidence for **those** gods implies they where created by people, are not what those people imply them to be and never did a single thing that isn't more readilly explained by people in the right place at the right time to make up gibberish explainations for natural events, doesn't mean that I presume that science can disprove "all" possible gods. Or lets put it this way, the fact that I never tripped over the "invisible" lawn gnome on my neighbors lawn, nor the fact that its currently scientifically infeasible to make things completely invisible, doesn't discout the existence of lawn gnomes. It does seri