In a recent guest post on Carl Zimmer’s The Loom, Ken Miller shows the lies and decieptions of Casey Luskin (the spokesman of the Discovery Institute). Here is Miller’s conclusion:
What are we left with? Nothing more than a vain attempt to pretend that ID’s collapse in the Dover case was the result of misrepresentation and deception. For Mr. Luskin and his employers at the Discovery Institute, the generation of sound and fury continues, but in scientific terms, their continuing noise signifies nothing more than the utter emptiness of their failed ideas.
I’m looking forward to the day when creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute are laughed at by atheists and Christians — just like we would all laugh at a Flat Earth Institute, no matter what the Bible might literally say about the matter. Ken Miller is a Christian and can laugh at them, so it gives me hope.
I know a recent biochem PhD who is also a Catholic and an old-Earth Creationist. The amount of crap she comes out with and the things which she wilfully ignores don’t just point to wilful ignorance; for somebody so scientifically literate and otherwise intelligent I think it indicates mental illness. You can see her awareness of conversation and evidence switch off as you say something which can’t be refuted – she goes still and slightly glazed and then replies as if you’ve said something completely different, almost as if her mind is supplying Conversation Lite to drown out the actual conversation. It’s a bit like talking to the Creatards who occasionally pop up on here.
“You can see her awareness of conversation and evidence switch off”
She’s transferring the data to the proper compartment of her mind.
Everyone is sensitive to Brainwashing. If you repeat it long enough then at a point you start to actually believe it. But what I am wondering did she buy her diploma?
Also pretending you are a creationist can be useful to get in power.
Look at Ted Hagard, he pretended to be against gay just to get into power.
No, her PhD is from Edinburgh University and was in biochemistry. She was looking for a cure for cancer – and yet she’s still a total retard when it comes to the old religious apologetics…
The one that blew my mind was the YEC who was a Geology phD candidate that I met in a Philosophy of Science class.
When it come to compartmentalization, that’s reaching for the stars.
Did he pass his thesis?
I predict that in 50 years the average Fundamentalist Christian will subscribe to some form or descent with modification.
I think the problem is worse than just religion vs atheism. For some reason, Americans seem prone to believing all kind of anti-scientist crap: cretinism, anti-vaccine movement, climate change deniers, etc.
I agree, I think it is caused by Youtube with clearly manipulative video’s and spamming.
Rating and comments disable they upload the videos using fake names.
It is funny that people are distrusting government since they get manipulated but they don’t realise that the conspiracy theorists themselves ARE the conspiracy by manipulating their believers.
Is Ken Miller really a Christian or does he just pretend to be religious to sell books?
If it’s true that Christians must believe in the Resurrection, then I don’t think Ken Miller can call himself a Christian. Ken Miller is too intelligent to believe in something that idiotic.
In my opinion, real Christians can’t accept evolution, because otherwise they would be believing in a magic god fairy who never had anything to do.
Some Christians sort of accept evolution, but virtually all of them stick their god fairy into evolution somewhere, either as an inventor of evolution, or as one of the mechanisms of evolution. This is worse than being a creationist, because they are polluting evolutionary biology with woo-woo. Also, they are being dishonest with themselves. It makes no sense at all to accept evolution and still have ancient superstitions about god fairies.
You obviously don’t understand Ken Miller’s position.
My generation of Christians and younger (I’m in my mid-20′s) will ultimately change the church’s overall perception of creation and evolution. We’ve come to peace with Science, and we don’t see something like evolution as a competitor to our lives of faith. I would say, somewhat confidently, that this generation of Christians will ultimately win out … even if not until the older generation of ideas dies out.
Wishful thinking, you still has it.
I don’t think it’s wishful thinking. Cultural evolution has entered the fast lane, and religions are not immune.
I think the next generation will have plenty of liberal Christians of all types and a growing number of agnostics, but I also think there will still be a core of fundamentalist creotard teabaggers who wave confederate flags and keep their kids at home all day so they don’t catch teh ghey.
Only in America are people “free” to be as stupid and bigotted – and to turn their own children into such stupid bigotts.
Oh please.
Well, okay, I could have preceded that with “In the developed world”.
Yes, the British are indeed free of bigotry. Or was your point that you guys aren’t in the developed world? That I would believe.
Now, now ‘Nope – that’s not what I said: “Only in America are people “free” to be as stupid and bigotted – and to turn their own children into such stupid bigotts.
We can’t make slurs of the kind that are common over there, we can’t incite hatred in ways which are common over there (Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter would all be in jail for inciting racial hatred, I assure you) – and we certainly can’t keep children at home to teach them stupidity and turn them into biblical literalists.
And what I’m saying is that it is inaccurate to the point of absurdity to say that simply because you have a few token laws to the effect that only the government has the right to teach your children who to hate (as opposed to us having privatized the honor) that you have made any great strides…no, make that any strides at all above and beyond the US in practical terms in banishing hatred or stupidity from your children or your society.
Well, when parents in Britain are allowed to keep their kids home and teach them myths as facts, or when kids in British schools learn myths as facts, then I’ll think about conceding that point.
Oh, give me a frakkin’ break, Custador. Do you really want to either implicitly or explicitly advance the foolish fiction that British godbots *don’t* in some way force their ideologies on their children? I mean, come on–y’all have a “creation museum” too! Y’all have rabid fundies too–as Elemenope noted, you may have laws that differ from ours concerning who gets to educate whom and how that education occurs, but the UK is by no means free from venal, intellectually bankrupt godbots. Y’all are just as free to be bigots as we are.
“I mean, come on–y’all have a “creation museum” too!”
Here’s a link for those interested … not quite the same really!
http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk
I don’t think the Brits are any less inherently liable to religious idiocy than the Americans or anyone else, but the culture here mitigates against it. Far fewer believers, those there are tend to be more moderate, politicians here do not trumpet their faith (they’d not get past selection, never mind election) and an established church whose bishops express doubt about the literal resurrection. Custador is right, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh would find themselves in jail here – not that they’d be given airtime in the first place.
I hope you are right, but it won’t be easy.
There is nothing wrong to be open minded and believe in something to be out there as long as you do your reality check from time to time.
Believing is something out there even if you know it is not true actually can have a positive effect. It creates a community feeling. But it does not have to be real, you become part of a Jedi group too.
It is very clear that the bible does not correspond to reality. Denying reality would be like denying god if you believe he exists. Accepting the bible as just a series of stories written by humans about a god would actually help to find the real god if he ever existed.
BUT accepting science will erode your believe.
At first you will see more proof in god, but if you go deeper into science you will see that the explanation of a god is too limiting to the reality of the universe. The universe is far more wonderful than any god explanation could ever be. The reason is pretty simple, the word god is based on human logic, the universe far exceeds the human logic.
Eleven dimensions, human logic cannot even grasp what this means!
Time travel, god in the bible has no concept of time travel. He is stuck to linear time.
Or timeless. i.e. stuck in the bronze age.
But I want it now!
*sigh* When will you all learn? ID theory is not a “creationist” position. Let me explain this logically:
1. Atheism (religious belief)→Materialism/Naturalism (philosophy)→Darwinism (view of origin)
2. Theism (religious belief)→Creationism (view of origin)→“Supernatural-ism” (philosophy)
3. Intelligent Design (view of origin)→Theism (religious belief)→“Supernatural-ism” (philosophy)
As you can see, the disbelief in God creates the philosophy leading to Darwinism (1), whereas “creationism” is the result of a belief in God (it’s not a scientific claim) (2). Finally, ID lacks a philosophical, metaphysical, or religious presupposition (and it’s the only one). Although, ID IMPLIES creationism (just as naturalism implies atheism), this doesn’t mean it’s dependent on a religious belief for its conclusions.
Let’s at least be intellectually honest in our claims.
Sam, you’re wrong. And you’re patronising with it. I suggest you either read the transcripts of the Dover trial or watch the documentary which dramatised it. I’ve done both – ID has been conclusively proven to be a repackaged version of creationism. “Pandas to People” in the original draft had the word “creationism” in place of “inteligent design” and “God” in place of “designer”. You can intellectualise it all you want – but ID and creationism are the same thing. If they’re not, why are the Discovery Institute (and a lot of other creationist organisations and individuals) fighting so hard to get it in schools? All the semantics in the world don’t alter reality.
Also, to coin a phrase, your logic is wrong anyway because it’s based on a false premise. To steal a phrase from elsewhere:
“Atheism is a religious belief like off is a TV channel.”
And bald is a hair color! :D
But, okay. Fetch me the “intelligent designer who is not a god, no, really, it’s not, honest!!” and then we’ll talk again, little grasshoper.
Under that logic, the “on” button (i.e. theism) is not a TV channel either. :)
It’s not! You could be watching white noise and be a theist; it’s only a religion when you tune to a channel.
I have pretty clearly explained how they are very different. And you are the one arguing semantics – I have actually DEFINED the terms, based on how Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, et al would define them. They are clearly different.
Sorry, Sam, but Judge John E. Jones III (R) would disagree strongly with you.
Here, educate yourself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
Sam, you’re not arguing semantics at all – you’re arguing against established facts. With that in mind, you’re going to lose.
“*sigh* When will you all learn?”
Will I learn what … that even stupid people have names that begin with S?
So very clever.
Yes #3 above would work if you could actually demonstrate it has any basis in reality. All you need do here is provide sufficient scientific evidence for ID and you will change views dramatically.
Also, to be consistent do you not need one additional postulate: ID -> Theism -> Supernaturalism -> ________________ (Some Other Believable Supernatural Means For The Universe To Have Been Designed)? If you can’t provide another mechanism then creationism and ID are joined at the hip. Your protestations that ID and God are not necessarily connected appear to be ex post facto. Perhaps your scientific theory needs to expand to include Lucifer or Michael.
I actually DO NOT accept your premise. I very clearly explained the difference between the two. “Creationism” is the IMPLICATION of ID theory – they are not co-dependent, they are not synonymous, and they should not be in the reverse order.
I love it when someone brings up “Materialism”. It’s a sign that they are about to embark on a journey of Making Stuff Up.
“Let’s at least be intellectually honest in our claims.”
Translation: Improve your capacity for self deception.
Do you really not believe that materialism and Darwinism are practically synonymous?
Sorry to continue this necrothread, but holy sh*t… the stupid, it burns.
In fact, you should probably read up more on what you believe. ;)
“Let’s at least be intellectually honest in our claims.”
You are just saying gd is logically intellectual, nothing more.
I guess you mean ID. And I said more than that…try again.
Wrong guess, honestly.
mikespeir said: “I predict that in 50 years the average Fundamentalist Christian will subscribe to some form or descent with modification.”
I predict that in 50 years the average Fundamentalist Christian will claim that Fundamentalists always did so and that evolution is in fact proof of Christianity, along w/ the Big Bang, etc.
Yes. This.
Looks like Luskin has replied to Miller and shown that Miller was wrong after all. All the links are here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/14081
Seems like this whole thread is another case where Darwinists accused ID people of “lying” only becuase that made it easier to avoid dealing with ID arguments.
Ummmm, no.
Luskin et al. continues to lie about their positions despite being debunked over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum.
You do realize that you cited the DI’s website and NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE. I suggest you read some ACTUAL SCIENCE lest you make yourself look stoopider than you already have:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
It’s a search engine for scientific data. Input “evolution” and be amazed.
Actually, what Luskin, on behalf of Behe, has done is to claim that Miller did not address a specific part of the claim that the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex, even though for all intents and purposes he did.
Behe made a specific claim that 7 specific components in the blood clotting mechanism must have existed simultaneously. One of them couldn’t possibly have existed before the others. Why? Behe hasn’t done any research into it, so we’re supposed to just take his word for it.
Unfortunately for Behe and Luskin, it was observed back in 2003 that some invertebrates do in fact not possess all seven components. Furthermore, leeches (another invertebrate) possess some entirely different components. This both puts the lie to Behe’s and Luskin’s claims, and it nicely supports evolution by descent, since this is what we would expect to find in ancestral organisms such as invertebrates.
Luskin et al can complain all they want about how some obscure paragraph in Behe’s book has been misinterpreted, but it’s a moot point since it doesn’t change the fact that the central part of their claim (and the only part of their claim that mentions any specifics) has been thoroughly refuted.
Miller explains it here.