…and this is a 
More on that Miller guy
Category: Creationism
Posted on: September 9, 2006 8:07 PM, by PZ Myers
I've now listened to a recording of Miller's talk in Kansas. I like it even less.
Miller is an excellent speaker. He's persuasive, he's clear, he knows his science well, and he was an impressive participant in the conflict at Dover…and he was on the correct side. Here's the problem: he's wrong now.
What he does is an insightful and lucid analysis of the problems with creationism, and then tries to wrap it up by identifying the source of the problem. Unfortunately, he places the blame in the laps of atheists, which is simply absurd. We've got fundamentalists straining to insert religious nonsense in the school curricula, and Miller's response is turn around and put the fault on those godless secular people who have antagonized good Christian folk, giving them perfectly reasonable cause to fear for their immortal souls. How dare we? It's only understandable that Kansans would object to godless interpretations of science!
There are so many ways in which this is wrong:
There is a reasonable case to be made that creationism is a response to modern (in the sense that they're less than two centuries old) ideas that threaten traditional beliefs. I've made the case myself that what court cases from Scopes to Dover have done is alienated ordinary people by highlighting the failings of strongly held myths. However, who needs to change here? These new ideas are a response to new evidence and new and better frameworks for understanding the world; Miller is making an appeal to the old by blaming the vanguard of the new, and legitimizing creationist biases against those who don't share their religion.
His strategy involves simply throwing a rather large subset of the evolutionary biology community to the wolves; not literally, of course, but let's redirect the political pressure they're using to silence evolution to silencing atheists. This is pure demagoguery. Pick a group you know your audience dislikes, put the blame on them, and let the scapegoating begin. And don't even try to pretend he's trying to encourage an honest dialog: is that what we get in the debates over evolution with these people?
I think he's missing what should be the ultimate goal: getting people to recognize atheists as normal human beings, and making it clear that it is not OK to treat them as the amoral degenerates you wouldn't want your daughter to marry. What we should be doing is saying, "Yes, many biologists are atheists (as are many non-biologists), they have different ideas than you do, but they aren't threatening you, so get used to them." Instead, it's singling atheists out as the reprehensible Other, held to account for creationists' dislike of evolution. If the source of the problem is widely held bigotry against atheists and atheism, shouldn't we be trying to educate people to end that, rather than pandering to it?
The idea is hopelessly naive. As Miller pointed out, many scientists already are real, live, active Christians, and many of them have been very influential. Mendel, Dobzhansky, Ayala, Miller himself…it's been a tactic by the NCSE and others to actively promote these Christian biologists as role models, and heck, even I hand out Miller's book to students who are struggling with the issues. Does it work? No. Does anyone say, "Well, the evolution by Dawkins and Mayr is bad, but the evolution by Conway Morris and Ayala is good"? The whole premise that the complaint is solely with the atheism of many of the proponents rather than with the implications and evidence of evolution itself is ludicrous. Is it only atheists who oppose the idea of a worldwide flood and promote the descent of humans from other primates? Shouldn't Miller be aware that even his tame version of Catholicism is seen as a damnable hellbound doctrine by many creationists?
One of the implications of evolutionary biology is that it is a cruel and wasteful and undirected process (and if you think otherwise, trot out the evidence. The Intelligent Design creationists sure are anxious to claim a directing force, and for all their bluster, they've failed to support it…as Miller knows full well.) I don't think we are well-served by trying to hide the inescapable conclusions of the evidence; we're better off facing the truth and building our lives around the facts. Miller finds his reason to get up in the morning in imagining a little god-shaped bundle of love hiding somewhere out of sight, and belittles Dawkins by wondering how he can get out of bed in the morning without that delusion. I am much more respectful of Dawkins' views, embracing 'mere' reality, and working towards a hopeful vision of the future in our humanity rather than a myth's whims.
To those who disagree with my calling Miller a creationist: tough. I've read his book, I've listened to several of his talks. He believes that evolution is insufficient to explain our existence, and has to postulate a mysterious intelligent entity that just happens to be the Christian god as an active agent in our history, and further, he believes he can make common cause with more overt creationists by highlighting his religious beliefs. Theistic evolutionists are part of the wide spectrum of creationist beliefs, and that he personally endorses the power of natural processes in 99.99% of all cases does not change what he is, it just means we're haggling over the degree.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Well, some people just blame atheists first for everything. It's always easier to play contrarian and find some random bogeyman associated with cultural liberalism to blame, than to say "The fundies are wrong, and here's how we can show it to people."
Posted by: Alon Levy | September 9, 2006 8:27 PM
Call me ignorant, but I don't know who "that Miller guy" is. Is it the biologist Kenneth R. Miller?
Posted by: Randy | September 9, 2006 8:27 PM
Randy, yes, that very biologist, the one who writes high school textbooks.
Posted by: Peter Z. | September 9, 2006 8:33 PM
PZ,
I was with you until the last paragraph. To call someone who accepts the fact of common descent and who actively promotes mainstream Evolutionary Biology a creationist seems to stretch the meaning of the word "creationist" so far that--to me, at least--it loses any useful meaning. If Miller is a creationist, wouldn't that make pretty much all Christians creationists, no matter what they're views on evolution are? If so, it seems like a waste of time to label people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Duane Gish creationists if the label can't distinguish them from Ken Miller, Howard Van Till and Wesley Elsberry, etc.
I'm perfectly happy to allow Miller and others to insert "and then God added the immortal soul" into their personal beliefs about human history as long as they recognize that it is not a scientific idea, and do not try to treat it as such.
But as I said, I agree with you about Miller's "shove the atheists under the bus to make the creationists happy" strategy(assuming, of course, that this is an accurate representation of what Miller said; I haven't listened to the speech myself).
Posted by: Dave Carlson | September 9, 2006 8:33 PM
Curious PZ -
What's your take on Martin Gardiner style theism? The position Gardiner articulates in "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener"? (That cranky Dane Søren Kierkegaard also bloviated on a similar theme.)
I'm reconstructing here, but Gardiner's "god" (note the lower case, and the quotations) is essentially a _subjective_ god. Gardiner buys all of the arguments for an _objective_ atheism, and has been at pains over the years to support and defend empiricism, skeptical thinking and even secular humanism. Yet what Gardiner finds hard to abandon is the _subjective_ experience of grace and wonder and humility at the intricate machinery of physical reality. When obliged to label the experience, he can only find one word with the right omniscient, mysterious connotations, and that word is "god". (To put my words in his mouth, this "faith" is Lou Reed's "faith" that ultimately "it's gonna be all right".)
Of course, what this "god" leads to is a kind of solipsism - it's awfully hard to talk to another about a subjective experience.
But if someone like Gardiner or Houston Smith or Lou Reed had made this kind of speech as a Unitarian Universalist meeting ('Spiritual and scientific ... different magesteria ... your argument is not with scientific thinking but but with the secular humanist world view ....anyone got a light?') would you have had the same difficulty? Or is it your view that to do good science a scientist must be an atheist in a metaphysical sense?
Curious -
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | September 9, 2006 8:43 PM
I just got home, and I've finally read through all the comments from the previous Miller thread. I guess all I have left to say is that at least he writes good textbooks.
Posted by: j | September 9, 2006 8:56 PM
Have you read Miller's book, Dave? It's an odd duck -- I agree completely with the science, but then there's all this flaky stuff about miracles and Catholicism. It's really not that big a stretch to see the commonality.
Paul: I have no problem with Gardner's fideism, or Miller's Catholicism, or Goodenough's pantheism, or even Ken Ham's fundamentalism -- what they want to believe isn't my business. What they want to promote in the public schools and in the offices of government is, and I want it all out. I don't think, for instance, that Miller's invocation of the possibility of a miracle at the onset of the Cambrian is appropriate or scientific.
Yes, I would have the same problem with this nonsense at a UU meeting, although given the recent history of attacks on atheist persons and property in the Bible belt, including Kansas, it is particularly tasteless to talk about redirecting fundamentalists to attacking atheism.
And no, I have repeatedly said that you do not need to be an atheist to be a good or even great scientist (shouldn't that be obvious?) The practice of science is done without reference to the supernatural, but that says nothing about what human beings should always do with their brains.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 8:56 PM
I don't think Miller claims "and then God added the immortal soul"; he seems to believe that the evolution of humans was directed by God. I think he has some hand waving about quantum indeterminacy as the means of God's control in his book.
I'm not surprised by any of this. Miller's theological claims have always been hokey; and his take on science is basically instrumentalism. It's time to recognise that the rhetorical ideal of a Christian who doesn't make any substantial claims about the natural world does not and cannot exist.
Posted by: poke | September 9, 2006 9:02 PM
PZ:
Where has Miller been promoting his faith in public schools or the offices of government?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | September 9, 2006 9:06 PM
In his book, Finding Darwins' God, Miller makes the claim that the existance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal is evidence for the existance of a supreme being, i.e. the supreme being wanted to make it impossible for intelligent life to know everything. The problem with this claim is that it may turn out to be a God of the Gaps if a deterministic hidden variable theory is uncovered.
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2006 9:13 PM
Does Miller's high school textbook actually invoke God?
Wow, and I thought YECs and IDists were destroying education...
Posted by: Alon Levy | September 9, 2006 9:22 PM
PZ -
I have read Miller's book, but, to be honest, I don't really remember much about Catholic/God stuff; I think I was paying closer attention to the anti-creo stuff.
I understand your point, but I guess I still have a hard time lumping Miller in with Dembski, et al. All in all, I see him as more of an ally than not as a science promoter, but I guess I have tended to ignore him when he talks more about religion than science. Can you remind me where he suggested that the Cambrian explosion could be the product of a miraculous intervention? Was it in "Finding Darwin's God?" If so, I've forgotten it.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | September 9, 2006 9:42 PM
PZ -
I will confess, in less celebrated circumstances than Miller's at the University of Kansas (think - Rugby Club, The Dutch Goose, two hours into a post match/training drinking session) I've tried to make what I think are similar points to Millers; ie "It's god v. no god boys, cos' in a God-v-Science caged death match God just ain't gonna show, if you want to debate meta-physics go for it but you better invite the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Now! who's getting the beer."
But having listened to the tapes once ('I'm glad we have this new technology / ... / it gives us untold opportunity / ... ') I think I can see what there is for an atheist or advocate of science teaching to object to in Miller's talk.
Yet - I dunno - Miller's talk is pretty mild stuff, PZ, by the standards of this debate. I might just as easily have written a "One Cheer for Ken Miller" kind of response.
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | September 9, 2006 9:44 PM
What I object to is the throwing around of "blame". Miller disagrees with you. You disagree with him. That's all to the good. But Miller is not throwing anyone to the wolves, and there is not the slightest indication he wants to silence anyone. (I've listened to the talk as well.)
Miller perfectly correct to note that he has no particular disagreement with many scientists, and that people who frame this particular debate as being between science on the one hand and religion on the other are making a sharp distinction that is not actually accepted by many scientists.
The people he disagrees with are the atheists. That's fine. I welcome that and take no offence. Yes, I do disagree with him, and with good reason. I recognize and agree that this is not simply Christians against scientists; as those two sets overlap. Miller also disagrees with the creationists, and would like to see them drop creationism, and take up instead the question of religion in the context of what we know by science. I also think that would be progress.
Miller does all of this with good grace. He does not demand that atheists be burned, or silenced, or thrown to wolves in any sense. His hope for a resolution of the wars over science and religion is not about hoping all the atheists will keep silence; but about wanting the ongoing debate to focus on the philosophical question of Gods existence, within the context of a common recognition of the basic material science. He was pretty plain about that in the talk. I also think that would be great.
He's not a creationist. He's a Christian. The term "creationist" is a subset of Christian belief. You may think that the more significant "problem" is Christianity; that's fine. Engage the debate, and I'll cheer you on. But the term "creationist" has a particular meaning in that debate, and it merely obscures matters to conflate creationism with belief in God more generally. They really are different.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | September 9, 2006 9:50 PM
Look people, the moment you invoke "goddidit" to explain ANYTHING in the observable world, you have left the domain of science. "Theistic evolution" is not science, indeed it is a (mild) form of antiscience. It differs greatly from full-on creationism in degree, obviously- but in kind it differs not at all. It may be impolitic to say that, but it's the truth nevertheless.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 9, 2006 9:52 PM
Alon: no, definitely not. I'm talking about Finding Darwin's God.
Paul: yes, it is mild stuff. The greatest heresies that evoke the strongest responses are the ones that are closest to you, that represent immediately discernable deviations. Miller is supposed to be on my side, helping people understand where we're coming from, not telling the creationists that it's open season on the godless.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 9:54 PM
Christianity Today: "Karl Giberson spoke with Miller about his faith, his public role as a defender of evolution, and the integrity of science.
Did you ever have any misgivings about the prospects of integrating evolution with your Catholic faith?
It's an interesting question to ask, and the simple answer to it is no. I benefited from the way that Catholics are generally brought up, which is to believe, almost from the get-go, that there is no inherent conflict between faith and reason, between religious doctrine and science. If science seeks truth and religion reveals truth, then how can there be a conflict between these two aspects of the truth?" http://ctlibrary.com/11059
Gee, if you speak in big enough generalities, I guess there can't be a conflict! He says "religion reveals truth". Is it this kind of revelation?:
"Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.
The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind -- mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man."
Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm
I hope he doesn't accept that!
Posted by: George | September 9, 2006 9:55 PM
Not to mention a couple of real, literal, blood-in-the-streets wars they've illegally launched in the most volatile parts of the world, apparently reassured that this will lead to the ultimate war, bliss for their own faction and endless hell for all the rest of us.
Yeah, let's all shut up and do our best to appease these irrationalists in every arena they choose to enter, sheltering them from any sort of criticism as carefully as his handlers do the faith-monger-in-chief. That way they may offer us the same consideration as some of their predecessors did when they were so merciful as to strangle certain witches before burning them at the stake.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 9, 2006 10:00 PM
Chris, this is an interesting interpretation:
That's actually one I would agree with. I entirely agree that the root of the problem is religion, and I also think that the only way to engage creationists in the long run is go straight to that root. However, I have two mental blocks that hinder my acceptance of that charitable interpretation:
1. For every 10 or 20 creationist rants in my mailbox, I typically get one or two really aggressive complaints from fellow evolutionists who insist that wearing my atheism on my sleeve is hurting the cause. Sometimes they're even ornerier than the creationists, and they never end by telling me that they'll pray for me. I will admit that it is my bias, but I have a hard time hearing a Christian biologist telling me to bare my fangs and go straight for the god/godless debate.
2. The really discombobulating thing about that idea is that it would put Miller on the opposite side from me, and on the same side with Dembski and Wells and Johnson. I'm trying to picture a complete change in the terms of the debate as Miller proposes, but it always results in him consistently arguing on their side. Is that really what he's suggesting? That he'd be more comfortable in a debate with Dembski, and against Dawkins?
OK, it's just a little freaky. If Miller is actually proposing greater militancy by us secular scientists, though, it's a great and provocative idea.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 10:17 PM
Does anybody have a link to the talk?
Posted by: MrsCogan | September 9, 2006 10:20 PM
Jack Krebs posted some earlier.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 10:29 PM
The problem with Miller's use of atheists as scapegoats to "target" is that it reinforces the mistaken idea that atheists use evolution primarily as a weapon against the faithful and reinforces the mistaken idea of some sort of "atheist conspiracy" regarding evolution.
Even though he may not intend to, he's helping the creationists.
Posted by: dorkafork | September 9, 2006 10:42 PM
I don't want to see Miller "sheltered", or "appeased". I want to see him engaged honestly. He's not wanting anyone silenced. He's not throwing anyone to the wolves. And he's not a creationist. He's a theist, and a Christian.
Engage that by all means. He's not denying any of the material conclusions of science that I have seen; he's rather trying to express a view of God and God's activity that is consistent with the material details of science. I think he fails in this. I've not read his book, but the reviews tell a common and unsurprising story. Although it presents itself as "Finding Darwin's God", the only bits that actually fit that title are towards the end, and they are by far the weakest parts of the book.
The attempt to link him to witch burning and so on suggests to me that many of my fellow atheists are not being particularly rational in this engagement.
To think he's actually helping the creationists is bizarre. He's the worst nightmare for the creationists; someone who comes in under the radar as a fellow theist and gets a hearing with young Christians who might otherwise see everything as a vast atheist conspiracy. Whether he's helping Christianity remains to be seen...
And for Paul - yes. I certainly don't think you should refrain from holding Miller's toes to the fire! It's just that trying to do this by linking him with witch burners, or censors, or creationists, is not a particularly valid way to approach it.
Miller is not suggesting greater militancy. What he suggests in his talk is "peace" in the evolution wars -- that if Christians drop the ridiculous attack on solidly established findings of science, then perhaps we atheists might be willing to say, "oh well, at least you are not in conflict with science, and you have a consistent viewpoint".
That won't happen. The creationists see it as giving up too much; and the fuzzy minded Miller reconciliation simply does not have the capacity to win and retain converts in the psychological games of religion. But even if the creationists dropped out of the picture, there's still a difference between Miller and Dawkins (and Meiyrs, and Ho-Stuart) and that will continue to be engaged. I'd like to see Miller's cordial and genial demeanor more widely adopted on all sides, but I don't propose a spurious respect for all ideas as equally sensible. I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out that the coherence of Miller's reconciliation of theism with naturalism is dubious, and that the mere fact he gives assent to all the material conclusions of science is not a free pass to saying he's got a reasonable and consistent position.
Cheers - Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | September 9, 2006 11:02 PM
For the record, since I get emails from folk trying to get my take on this stuff:
1) First of all, Dr. Miller's beliefs never figure in the TEXTBOOKS he's written with Dr. Levine; some posters seem confused on this point
2) Secondly, I agree with Chris Ho-Stuart's take on this stuff, but I think it would be reasonable to ask for a clarification from Ken Miller himself
3) I'm a believer, but that has nothing to do with the practice of science. Skepticism in all its forms, including that regarding the God of Christianity, is essential to the conduct of science. I often disagree with PZ, but I would never attempt to muzzle him just to make it easier to 'sell' evolution; Dr. Miller's remarks can be easily interpreted as scapegoating atheists, and that's wrong. We can and should defend evolution on its merits without attempting to silence skeptical voices
Seriously...Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | September 9, 2006 11:10 PM
Maybe Ken Miller will tell us whether he believes the Pope is infallible:
"How can a mere man be infallible? Is that not a prerogative of God alone?
God alone is essentially infallible, for, as the Absolute Truth, He cannot deceive or be deceived. God can, however, make the Pope infallible as His representative upon earth, in order to safeguard His divine revelation. That He has done so is proved by the Sacred Scriptures and by the history of the Church."
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/qb79
Posted by: George | September 9, 2006 11:12 PM
I read Finding Darwin's God. The first half was very good. The last half, well it was a real struggle to finish it. He seemed to pin just about all of his faith on quantum theory and uncertainty, as being a place where god can hide from science, since we can't (even in principle) ever come up with any "materialistic" or deterministic reason for it. What he didn't tell you is quantum theory doesn't help his case either, since it is *by definition* utterly random, and doesn't work if there's a god pulling strings.
Posted by: jeffw | September 9, 2006 11:13 PM
When I read Finding Darwin's God, I would not have made a hyperbolic comment about witch-burning. There's a difference between promoting a belief that I find mistaken, as he does in the book, and telling an audience of Kansans that they've been shooting the wrong target.
I don't get that at all. It doesn't even make sense.
"If you unilaterally abandon the center of all of your arguments, those other guys over there might stop arguing with you."
I just can't believe that Ken Miller would be that clueless about the creationist position. I mean, the suggestion that the reason Christians adopt creationism is because they're in a snit over the fact that atheists don't accept that Jesus, and that all we have to do is say "Christians, you're OK! Group Hug!" and they'll all go, "OK, and yeah, we admit, the world is 4 and a half billion years old and we know we really evolved from unicellular ancestors" is just too cute.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 11:20 PM
Eh. I don't know about that. I see relatively little criticism of Miller from creationists...certainly nothing comparable to what we see against Dawkins. Not that they couldn't be trembling in such fear of Miller that they're afraid to mention his name, it's just not detectable. Or maybe Dawkins is just a better boogeyman.
It also flies in the face of Miller's thesis that it's the militant atheists driving Christians towards creationism. If that were the case, wouldn't they instead be relieved to see Miller, a role model who at last gives them an excuse to give up that anti-science nonsense?
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 11:28 PM
You paint it as scapegoating. I don't get this. Of course Christians disagree with atheists abd vica versa on matters of religious belief. Why is that a surprise? He's saying that if you disagree with atheists, disagree with atheists. Don't disagree with the science, or even the science of people who happen to be atheists.
You act like there are no atheists running around telling religious believers that they are weak minded idiots. Well, there are. Plenty of them. Do you think that Miller as a scientist MUST agree with those opinions, or else he's siding with the creationists? Or can he disagree with them, and say "disagree with the atheists as atheists that say these things, not scientists as scientists"? Or must the bashing be 100% one-sided before it's acceptable?
"In his book, Finding Darwins' God, Miller makes the claim that the existance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal is evidence for the existance of a supreme being, i.e. the supreme being wanted to make it impossible for intelligent life to know everything."
That's not what I rememeber. I remember that entire section not as "this is evidence of this that proves God" but rather "creationists have no imagination: science is a better fit for theology." The whole section is premised on the idea that if you believe in God, science need not be seen as constantly making religion smaller, but can instead deepen your understand of God's creation. I didn't believe a word of that section, but I also wasn't knee jerk against the idea that a believer has the right to look at the science, and figure out how to reconcile it with their faith.
Posted by: plunge | September 9, 2006 11:43 PM
PZ said -
"It also flies in the face of Miller's thesis that it's the militant atheists driving Christians towards creationism. If that were the case, wouldn't they instead be relieved to see Miller, a role model who at last gives them an excuse to give up that anti-science nonsense?"
Well, I'm equally skeptical about the idea that militant atheists are the primary reason that so many Christians embrace creationism, but I'm betting the reason that Miller wrote "Finding Darwin's God" and gives speeches like the one we're talking about here is precisely what you've described. He hopes to both present the evidence for evolution and also try to make the case that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Whether or not he has any chance of succeeding at this latter goal, I don't know. Since I'm not a Christian, my natural inclination is to be ambivalent about the whole; after all, why should I care about what is and is not compatible with a belief system that I don't believe in? But as a science-phile, I wish him success purely for pragmatic reasons--namely, I want good science to win the culture wars.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | September 9, 2006 11:48 PM
I'm with Steve LaBonne: Look people, the moment you invoke "goddidit" to explain ANYTHING in the observable world, you have left the domain of science. "Theistic evolution" is not science, indeed it is a (mild) form of antiscience.
I'm with you all the way, Steve. Problem is, I've been debating with myself whether or not to get a creationist relative Miller's Finding Darwin's God for Christmas (from "Santa"). I've always been of two minds about Miller and I have to admit that I have not read the book and intend to before making it a present, but now I'm more ambivalent about Miller than ever. What's better? Possibly providing an avenue for a relative to finally accept evolution or just leaving it alone? I'm pretty disappointed in Miller now.
Posted by: Kristine | September 10, 2006 12:05 AM
Hi all, this is my first time writing anything but I've been reading some of the blogs around here for a little while. Firstly, I would like to say that Schrodinger's equation is the best guess we have right now, and in the future, it is possible that we can develop a better model to desribe the location/spin of an electron. So I don't really buy that as an explanation of Yahweh's existence.
Secondly, PZ is right, c'mon, the guy is a creationist. It sounds to me that Miller "sort-of" believes in evolution. From what I understand, his argument boils down to the same argument as the ID argument. There is no epistemological proof pertaining to his personal theory about how the world was created, yet he still wants to surrender to the possibility that God started it all up. Its just as hokey as reincarnation, but at least the Hindu's have the whole conservation of energy thing going for that idea. Basically, I think its irresponsible for biologists, particularly the evolutionary kind to mention anything about Allah's/God's/Yahweh's involvement with the creation of life.
-Ilya
Posted by: Ilya Zlatkovsky | September 10, 2006 12:08 AM
If you check Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover case, he admitted to being a creationist in the general sense - that is, he believes that God created the universe. He rejects creationism in the sense that the word is most often used, that is, as referring to a literal interpretation of Genesis as historical fact. He also repeatedly testified that he believes, "God is the author of all things seen and unseen," which is certainly suggestive of a general creationist belief system. So PZ is correct, in the most general sense of the word, Ken Miller is a creationist.
What I don't understand is why Professor Miller, a bright and personable fellow in my opinion, would pin blame for the Evolution Wars on atheists, who insist on belief based on facts, rather than the religious faithful, whose beliefs require (and have) no factual basis. This is analogous to blaming the MD for the resentments of folk healers who employ leeches and bloodletting in unsuccessful treatments of infections. Choosing faith over facts inevitably means that the world is going to continually "test" your faith with reality. The rational person accepts reality; the irrational person gets angry and blames the rational person for the fact that his beliefs don't hold up in the real world. Miller should be urging creationists to just accept the fact that their beliefs are not supported by evidence in the real world and to stop blaming those who take a more scientific view.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | September 10, 2006 12:14 AM
Kristine:
I also agree with Steve LeBonne that theistic evolution is a metaphysical position that invokes a Creator, and is thus 'Creationism Lite', outside the domain of science. That's just one of the reasons I'm careful to stipulate that I do not consider myself an 'evolutionist', theistic or otherwise.
However, I'm not certain if Miller's views qualify as an ANTI-science position, so I might part company with Steven's description there. Miller invokes quantum indeterminancy in a very fuzzy (and, frankly, not all that convincing way) to whistle up a version of theistic evolution that's also non-falsifiable. So his view doesn't oppose science so much as it simply avoids making any declarations that science can test.
In any case, by all means, read the book as it will provide you with more context to evaluate Miller's views. As a skeptic, pay careful attention to the chapter called 'The Gods of Disbelief' and decide for yourself if he is scapegoating atheists, or merely raising principled objections.
Cordially...Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | September 10, 2006 12:21 AM
Miller may not be a creationist with a capital "C", but he certainly does believe in a theistic Creator and I think that is ultimately what leads him astray here. Making atheists out to be bogeymen because they dare to be, in Dawkins' words, intellectually fullfilled by Darwin's fundamental insight, isn't getting at the root of the problem with creationism at all, which is the willful ignorance of reality that doesn't square with creationist's religious beliefs. It isn't the fault of atheists that the science better supports their side of the argument than it does the theist's side!
Posted by: David Wilford | September 10, 2006 12:23 AM
plunge said:
You act like there are no atheists running around telling religious believers that they are weak minded idiots. Well, there are. Plenty of them.
Someone around here once said that religion is a hole in the brain.
I'll buy that.
I believe Ted Turner also had an opinion on the subject:"Christianity is a religion for losers."
So, yes, some say that.
Posted by: Lettuce | September 10, 2006 12:38 AM
There are always those who sneeringly point fingers and call names, and their ranks include both theists and atheists. But that isn't Ken Miller's reported point here, which is that atheists are somehow misconstruing evolution for their own ends. I fail to see how that is, myself.
Posted by: David Wilford | September 10, 2006 12:45 AM
Paul says:
If you look at Ken's own words in his talk, the "target" he identifies is the ideas of atheism. Not the individuals. Not the athiests as people. That's why it is so utterly stupid to speak of witch-burning.
In fact, you and Miller are actually saying much the same things as far as identifying appropriate targets go. Both you and Miller think that the fundamental issue is not between "old earth"/"young earth", or "evolution"/"creation". It is between belief and disbelief; between faith and skeptisicm.
The rest of your comments about the naiveity of Miller thinking that the path to peace lies in creationists just deciding to give up the whole basis for their position, I agree with entirely.
My objection to your blog posts has not been because you dare to disagree with Miller, or because of some objection notion of breaking ranks against creationists. I like to see robust and forthright engagement between atheism and theism; go for it.
My objection is simply to the irrational remarks about being thrown to wolves, or witch-burning, or silencing critics -- all of which are about as far removed from Miller's approach as could be imagined.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | September 10, 2006 12:49 AM
Dave Carlson wrote:
No. You can't use the scientific method (methodological naturalism) just 99% of the time and still call yourself a scientist (I'm almost quoting PZ exactly or somebody he once quoted here). Ken Miller has become a creationist because
Can it not be any more clear he is a creationist? I think not.
Paul G. Brown wrote:
To get to exactly what is wrong with Gardiner... Beauty is not an argument. End of discussion. It's a fallacy.
And now I want to talk to PZ.
Every other thread or comment or so, I keep seeing you say, "I don't care what he believes" or "what they want to believe isn't my business." But I don't think that's really true. We know you care what they believe because, as is the bulk of the content of your blog, their beliefs have consequences in the real world, and to other very real people, and that makes their beliefs more than relevant. I don't see why you have to go out of your way to excuse people's back-ass-wards ways of thinking by saying you have no business in their beliefs. You know, I know, and I'm sure many rational thinkers know that faith - no matter how mundane - is moral failing.
Posted by: Aerik | September 10, 2006 1:06 AM
Chris, what I find objectionable with Miller's reported speech isn't any personal attack against me as an atheist, it's his assertion that it is somehow my fault as an atheist for citing Darwin's theory of evolution in support of my own atheism for upsetting and motivating creationists. I should hope they are upset when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs, but unlike Miller I think that's a good thing. What's the point of teaching any science at all if we don't allow it to inform the wider debate?
Posted by: David Wilford | September 10, 2006 1:16 AM
Seeking Papal support
Christian Century, Sept 20, 2005
"Physics professor Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland ... wrote to Pope Benedict XVI in July [2005] asking that the Catholic Church not "build a new divide, long ago eradicated, between the scientific method and religious belief" and asking the pope to clarify the church's position on evolution. Cosigning the letter with Krauss, a popular science author, were two Catholic biologists, Kenneth Miller of Brown University and Francisco Ayala of the University of California-Irvine. They are among scientists worried about a revised Catholic stance on evolution as expressed by Vienna cardinal Christoph Schonborn in the July 7 New York Times. Schonborn wrote: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense--an unguided, unplanned process ... is not."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_19_122/ai_n15674702
Why are they compromising themselves by asking the Pope anything, for crying out loud? It seems ridiculous that a scientst, in this day and age, is asking a Pope to make a science-friendly pronouncment about evolution. Who the hell cares what the Pope thinks about it? What does he know?
Posted by: George | September 10, 2006 1:25 AM
In a sense, Miller was playing right into the hands of the creationists by reinforcing the myth that atheists are using evolution to attack religion - and that that is what the creationists take issue with.
However, William Dembski claimed that Ken Miller was a closet IDist, which was obviously wrong. Now, it seems, that PZ has also played into the creationist's hands:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1576
What are we to think about this? IDists would rather have Ken Miller on their side than not, because unlike them, he's actually does science. Sometimes Stephen J. Gould played into the creationists' hands with some of his descriptions of evolution, is he a creationist, too?
Ken Miller is not a creationist, and although you are riled up, PZ, as I am, calling Miller a creationist is a mistake, both factually and tactically. I'm preparing an email to send to Miller when I have listened to the clips, and I'm going to complain about his scapegoating non-religious scientists to win an audience. His words sound like they were divisive and inaccurate, from what I have read and my own personal experiences. Evolution parts ways with a literal reading of most holy texts - and that's something that Ken Miller needs to recognize as a problem for science - and not point fingers at those who have no need to reconcile a really old book with modern science.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | September 10, 2006 1:55 AM
As all baseball fans know, "you can't steal 1st base." So my problem is that the Darwin community is stealing 2nd and 3rd, and some even make it to home, yet none of them have ever gotten to 1st. With the wave of the hand, pre-Stephen Hawkin Big Bang, or even the 11-dimentional world of String Theory, all are brushed aside, for connecting fossilized hip bone to leg bone is easy, all that occurs on 3rd base! Say the Cosmos is composed of strings, tiny strings, on the scale of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter -- Planck length. Let's tease this fabric a bit, and oh yeah, and ponder all those dimentions up to the 11th. Folks, we haven't gotten to 1st base yet, so all you who are standing on 2nd and 3rd, rubbing your hands, well, face it, you stole 1st base, because that's the only reason to explain where you're at now.
Shalom,
Bro. Bartleby
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | September 10, 2006 2:06 AM
The quantum part is something he couldn't mangle more if he were a lit crit professor. There's a reason random fluctuations in quantum mechanics are called random: it's because there's just no way of predicting them, on the small or large scale. You don't need a hidden variable theory to realize that suggesting that the FSM is driving subatomic interactions is just plain nuts.
Posted by: Alon Levy | September 10, 2006 2:08 AM
Miller's response is turn around and put the fault on those godless secular people who have antagonized good Christian folk, giving them perfectly reasonable cause to fear for their immortal souls.
This part is giving me flashbacks. It reminds me of coming home from school and telling my mom that the other kids were beating me up again, and having her say, "What did you do to make them mad?"
Posted by: Interrobang | September 10, 2006 2:51 AM
"you can't steal 1st base."
You mean like invoking the Bible to explain creation?
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 10, 2006 3:15 AM
Ken Miller stills does some of the best, most accessible presentations smacking Irreducible Complexity, and basically anything else Behe has come up with, down on the mat and making it give up. Watching those talks is downright fantastic.
I'm going to keep my reaction in check until I see whether the non-atheist attendees took away the wrong message.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | September 10, 2006 4:05 AM
It strikes me that the problem here is that there are two (connected) debates. The first is the scientific one over evolution. Here PZ and Miller are in agreement, and the Creationists are on the other side. The second debate is the theological one: does a God exist. Obviously Miller lines up with the Creatioists (although he may disagree with them on the finer questions of what this god is like).
I think the problem is that these two debates get conflated: this is what Dawkins started (inadvertantly, I presume), and the fundies have been doing ever since.
If I read Miller correctly, his argument is that there are two debates, and that the fundamental one is the theological debate, not the scientific one. The debate should therefore be about theology, not evolution. After all, if one looks at the evidence, there shouldn't be a debate about evolution.
Whilst this would make sense, the problem is controlling the agenda. At the moment, the IDers and Creationists have managed to keep the debate on evolution, and it will be difficult to wrest it away.
What this means (I think) is that we do have to be careful about which debate we are discussing. As long as the fundies control the agenda, and focus on evolution, then I think we have to make sure we stick to that debate, and make it clear that it's not a theological debate, and that people of different beliefs come to the same scientific conclusions. One the other hand, a different strategy would be to try and move the debate on to theology. The problem is that this will only work if the fundies allow it.
The thing not to do is to try and debate both points at the same time: that way you'll divide your own side. If you're an atheist and pro-evolution, then this is a pretty good way of losing both arguments.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 10, 2006 4:15 AM
"Chris, this is an interesting interpretation:
His hope for a resolution of the wars over science and religion is not about hoping all the atheists will keep silence; but about wanting the ongoing debate to focus on the philosophical question of Gods existence, within the context of a common recognition of the basic material science.
That's actually one I would agree with. I entirely agree that the root of the problem is religion, and I also think that the only way to engage creationists in the long run is go straight to that root." ....
No god is detectable, even if that god exists.
Unless and untilthis testable hypothesis is disproved, then the default position must be that of an agnostic, at the least.
This is a testable / empirical / scientific proposition.
Let the christian believers, and other believers try to prove me wrong, or, alternatively, will they please shut up?
Posted by: G. Tingey | September 10, 2006 4:24 AM
Rule of the Game
I depend on scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. to address real (nothing to do with metaphysics) world life and death issues for me or loved ones. I have every right to demand that they seek and apply real (nothing to do with god) world answers to everything they do for me, regardless of their belief in ethereal beings. If your beliefs REALLY in a practical sense dictate your actions and conclusions, please don't apply for the job.
Want to Debate the Rule?
Let me talk to you next time your 8 year old kid is lying in some hospital bed with death at their door. Let me talk to you after all the doctors and nurses and technicians decide to drop the paddles and alternatively drop to their knees and pray when she's in cardiac arrest.
Here's What I Think
Anyone who doesn't prescribe to my rule for themselves is very ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a liar, or demented, or criminally demented, or coerced, or any combo.
Here's What I Think (Part 2)
Theist out there here is one for you: anyone in a foxhole who is still ducking for cover, defensively shooting, etc. is an ATHEIST! Actually there are few if any FAITHFUL in foxholes ... when the chips are down most people act like ATHEISTS not like FAITHFUL! Actions man - they speak louder than words!
Parting Shot
I don't need any fairy tells to have meaning, be moral, do good, think, be productive, etc. The fact that you (Miller, et al) are so insecure at some level that you have to construct a Zeus or something to float your boat doesn't mean I should or kowtow for those that do.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | September 10, 2006 5:41 AM
What i don`t get with most people is how one cannot understand how inefficous all this effort to rant etc, is. I usually don`t do it at all, because there`s no use in it.
Neurologically speaking the only effect you can really make is within the early years of a child, after that the effect lessens and takes more and more time.
The only reason PZ blogs is because it is rewarding for him (neurochemically speaking). In reality however religion doesn`t start with some innate spiritulaity (like that every person on this planet believes in the diviness of the norht korean totalist Kim Il-sung - may i just say KIM, there is no god but kim- sorry for that i just couldn`t help it....weird huh).
PS: On the contrary if anyone should be god (and i am up for a vote) than god `ol lil kim, not only because he`s so cute looking but also because he`s a smarter god than the pope (oh yeah the pope ain`t god i forgot) who doesn`t even get exactly how he manipulates his "own people", and the mechanisms behind it. What a frigging iditot, that of course manifests itself in terms of efficacy - the pope as much as he might wish for cannot even command a few holy warriors to do some assasinations in the name of god, whereas Kim does it all the time, with total ease.
Besides Kim loves you, gives you double the time in afterlife and protects you with his divine powers (don`t argue with me i`ve had enough already, or i`ll send kim`s warrior to assasinate your wimp jesus guy and those other two iditots). Oh and for each assasination you at a whore in afterlife. Yes a relly, really stupid, retarded one like paris hilton.
So who`s up for kim - cmon he`s a really strong god....
no-one...weird, why didn`t it work....In north korea it works all the time 99.9% efficient.
Do you finally get me point, even with all the blogging success in reality PZ makes not even a dent, hardly a difference at all. It`s almost a waste of time - IMHO he could do way more with more basic research.
Reading already requires a sophistication and is probably the less eficient medium there is when it comes to manipulating the minds of people, and that`s what it is all about. For every thousand of hours PZ spends on blogging (that means years of blogging IRL) there runs a one hour cretionists movie, created with very little effort on PBS but using the most weighted senses that is the the auditory and visual ones. After that the lil kiddie will start to associate and see ID everywhere. As a scientist the only difference you can make is by understanding how society works - in fact human psychology and target and address the same methods the state and everyone else uses - that is difficult requires power, lots of time and money. But it can gradually increase the numbers of scientists - meaning it increases your life expectancy (bew aware that currently i estimate way LESS than 0.1 promille of the world population are contributing scientists - including all doctors submitting medical reports/papers, a.s.o).
In fact the greatest difference for the US can probably be made by making people aware that there should be a new law passed who can and who cannot become a presidential candidate. The economy and everyone else would principally understand that a first grade product is way more efficient than having some third grade rotten product if you can have both at the same price. The new upcoming candidates on the list are just as frigging iditots as bush.
So i deem to not understand human psychology fairly well but also societies - let`s not kid ourselves, even with the greatest of success you hardly make any difference at all.
If people actually wana make a difference, than with some brain and method - in fact the same methodology that the discovery institute uses - AND EVERONE ELSE (duh we live in the 21st century, human psychology and the essential human brain conserved in all of us is no secret ANYMORE!). They are not iditos but are about making cash, the same way scientiology makes his cash and every other sect for that matter (some get so entangled as to ultimately believe that crap themselves - because to convey that shit without breaking out into laughter under any situation you gotta repeat and repeat and repeat that over and over again in dry runs so to speak). IN fact WOuld i rather write a book about alien bullshitt or a scientific textbook if i were interested to earning some cash. Some idito wrote a textbook about Atlantis and how the aliens brought us there and provided us with language and whatnot - sold 12 million times. It`s not that people all believe in the supernatural, it is that people are trained to believe in the supernatural, in things they don`t see the easter bunny, jesus this and that. Did it ever occur to anyone that there are studies that in fact the imagainary-friend phenomenon seen in children is rather a western culture phenomenon in kids and hardly seen in industrial worlds, where kids are mostly trained in survival and not in the believe of some ghosts and whatnot. Does anyone really have an idea how the perception of the television dreck running 24/7 alters brain function in later life on. I frankly don`t know but you certainly don`t either (I know though that there are studies to everything, so i am not so ignorant to actually believe one cannot know as of yet) - what I and every scientists knows is that it does of course alter you because it is in essence experience (in fact it is even more drastic than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons).
So at LEAST be reasonable and true to ourselves and let`s not be in denial, we blog post and rant here not because we make any difference at all (your efficacy PZ over a nationwide tv programm is probably around 0.0001%) for the mere reason every human does anything, to get a neurochemical reward. In essence a humanist is as frigging egoistic as a mass murder, just with very different associations as to what is linked with reward or actual pathology in the reward pathway (but that is really hard to assess given how easy it is to train a kid to get a high out of killing the same way you do with a lab rat in a psychological experiment). Duh! - the reward pathway is the only purpose in life and is highly conserved.
Oh and i am just as egoistic as everyone else, because i get the greatest reward out of the mere imagination how much more years i can have (80, 90,....) all a number that is affected virtually only by the number of scientists doing basic research. So i don`t give a rats ass about either the humanist or mass murderer. Society works well enough to not care about either one of those either: the mass murderer is ultimately locked away with great media coverage dramatic interplay and whatnot giving actual rise to inspire others whereas the humanist will probably hardly ever appear in the media and hardly inspire anyone other than his imaginagiary friends (god, jesus, Kim, me,...).
Don`t worry - this is gonna be my last rant for quite some time. That being said, there is no GOD but Kim - so if there are christians on this board - and you probably discussed as a kid who would win in a fight of godzilla vs. jesus, and whilst most kids were all for godzilla for sure, whilst you argued that god would just zap godzilla with his divine power-bolts [which are actually caused by cosmic divine particles], i then ask you who would win this fight jesus (the psychotherapist) vs. the powerful Kim Il sung (the psychologist):
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/kim-il-sung.html
So to conclude this: PZ you don`t even make a scratch, go show some iniative in the cephalopod sequencing instead, and do not kid yourself about blogging, or hook up with media guys and whatnot.
My gripe with the religious idiots out there is that they all exploiting neurodevelopment routines of newborns (deeply rooted in our genes) but are too fu**** stupid to even get what exactly they are exploiting. Hence i have ALMOST more respect for people like Kim than i have with such effing religious iditots who try to heal themselves with prayers, and end up in the clinic anyways.
Religion in itself is a group dynamics phenomenon with positive feedback. It starts with a vision and ultimately even the leader becomes more and more convinced of the concept itself because of the group feedback. So i am sure Kim Il sung knows by now that he is a divine god who arose from the water and it is not a lie anymore.
Religion will gradually die out however as societies evolve and we will see the need for eugenetics. Everyone who says that eugenetics have been there before are friggin iditots.
Eugenetics is the evolution of prenatal genetic diagnosis along with selection for instance. In a way we to it already today, the price for the diagnosis alone however is enormously high.
Eugenetics clearly can only exists efficiently at the DNA level of the single cell stage. In a way gene therapy is eugenetics as well.
All that James Watson argues for is that we as a society have now the responsibility to care about natural selection in a humane way. I frankly fail to see how it is humane to grow a kid with serious genetic defects for one`s own perverted pleasure (and growing kids itself is just as well rooted in the reward pathway). Nature doesn`t care which kid you grow, you don`t either, you could swap the babies after birth and 99% wouldn`t notice a difference unless certain genetic traits are too obvious (e.g. Melanocyte presentation).
The selfish gene itself means that we want the best for our posterity and want them to be dominant. Eugenetics will mean to erradicate genetic diseases, erradicate or at least silence evolutionary relicts such as the appendix, it will also means the erradication of undesirable behavioral traits such as e.g. overproduction of sex-hormones as well neurological functions such as the survival mode that have become an evolutionary burden for as as a society.
This wouldn`t require to eliminate the mode itself just to eliminate the cell signaling pathway at any position that least affects all other pathways, whilst slightly altering the affinity of other expressed "signals" who use the same pathways but whose receptors would bind higher to the altered molecule anyways.
This thought alone, that we are not stuck in time but actually evolving give me as much peace as the idea of christians with their afterlife.
We could eliminate a lot of suffering in this world if we could effectivly eliminate the bypassing of the rational centers in our brain a neurochemically induced relict unfavorable in every way.
All of that sounds like an extreme goal, and it will take hundreds of years and the revolution already started in a way and will boost with diagnostic means of whole genome sequencing along with epigenetic information (which is even more crucical to some extend) and nanotechnology will enable us something like that in about 7-10 years.
Ignorance however, we might just never eliminate, ignorance such as scientists believes of the direct translation of mechanical properties to quantum mechanics that gave rise to the visions of nanorobots and so forth - a vision but forth by engineers who have virtually no chemical experience, especially not on the nanoscale.
The uderstanding of quantum mechanics explains not only why nanorobots etc, are not only completely inefficous but virtually impossible. Something every serious scientist with a profound understanding of chemistry realizes and knows.
Behe certainly believes strongly in nanorobots as well, i probably think that gave rise to his iditotic idea of irrefutable convexity *sarc*.
These machines in such a complexity will never work, whether you like it or not, the molecular machinary of life is certainly not the only one imaginable but the crucial step is a polar solvent with similar properties as water (e.g. life could exists on other planets based on ammoniac).
In a way the polar solvent is what enables the creation of molecular evolution in the first place.
Molecular machinery is just a neat term to oversimplify a lot of crucial steps, because unless you are a savant you will be hard pressed to constantly imagine all the wavefunctions of any given molecule but rather stick to simplifications such as Frontal molecular orbital theory and of course to molecular modelling. With utter satisfaction that what you do there in software is virtually coinciding with the real world.
The g