Biologist Kenneth Miller states that "Intelligent Design is winning"

nanowerk.com/news/newsid=4570.php

Posted: February 17, 2008
There is ‘design’ in nature, Brown biologist argues at AAAS
(Nanowerk News) Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the “intelligent design” crowd. They know how to frame an issue.

“The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,” Miller said. “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.

“To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.

In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston, Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” – the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.
Miller will make his case in a session titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America,” set to run from 1:45 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 309 of the Hynes Convention Center. Miller will join seven other experts to discuss ways to craft communication efforts around evolution, stem cell research, climate change and nanotechnology that are sensitive to religious communities while remaining true to science.

Miller is a cell biologist and the Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown. Miller is coauthor of four high school and college biology textbooks, which are used by millions of students nationwide, and is regarded as America’s leading defender of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This year in South Carolina, Miller successfully defended one of his textbooks against an anti-evolution attack before the state school board. In 2005, he served as lead witness in the trial on evolution and intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. His popular book, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution, addresses the scientific status of evolutionary theory and its relationship to religious views of nature.

Miller will use arguments from his new book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul to be published by Viking Press in May, for his AAAS talk. Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the “design” concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design – or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.
“There is, indeed, a design to life – an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

Source: Brown University

People want to believe life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why they’re rejecting Darwinism.

“To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.

Apparently, scientists need to “fight back” against a minority opinion that only a tiny bunch of wacko creationists believe. It seems that Mr. Miller is quite concerned in any case. He’s telling scientists to try to say things differently because they way they’ve been saying them has not been working very well.

Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

That means that scientists would have to give up teaching the randomness and irrationality or nature which the Darwinist culture has long proposed.

Now, all of a sudden, there is “evolutionary design”. :rolleyes: Talk about surrendering your point by having to adopt your enemy’s language.

Yes, I forgot – evolution was always about design. “There’s nothing new here”. Miller is just upset about all the lies that creationists are telling so he’s urging scientists to “fight back” by telling even more truth – but by restating it in “more compelling” language that everybody will certainly love and embrace.

Random, blind processes create things that are designed!

We’ll see people flocking to Darwinism now, more than ever. :slight_smile:

I’m fascinated to know what caused Miller to conclude that Intelligent Design is winning adherents and that his side has to “fight back” now.

Perhaps Mr. Miller should recruit some Darwinian apologists from this site. They’ll certainly do a great job in winning back some adherents that Darwin has lost. :rolleyes:

Actually, “design” has been used in legitimate science in the sense of order. One of the great texts is Leonard Radinsky’s “The Evolution of Vertebrate Design.”

And this is the time to hit ID; it’s down from losses in court, defections among the membership, and Behe’s admission that ID is science in the same sense astrology is science. As Phillip Johnson admitted, it’s a “train wreck” right now.

If people understood that science is consistent with Gods creation and order in the universe, without the superstition and snake oil of creationism/ID, that would be great.

Miller is right. We need to keep spreading the word. People, if they realize they don’t have to accept the Rev. Moon’s doctrines to accept God’s role in nature, will do so.

The Lie can not run very far because it has very short legs.

Spontaneous Generation, Big Bang, Evolution, Panspermia, or Intelligent Design are all lies.

The deceiver is just buying time and generating as much confusion as it can for the day of its biggest hoax.

Trust the Bible, Science is out there just as a tool for fooling you.

The biggest mistake that believers make is to assume that in order to believe the former, that they must reject the latter.

Any believer in the Judeo-Christian God who also believes that God has no foreknowledge of and/or control over “random” events, please raise your hand so that we may correct you. :slight_smile:

The art of deception has been used in warfare since ancient times. The deceiver, in this case, is a real being. Jesus talks about him. But then science enters the picture and it says, we have evidence, you can’t argue against evidence.

Catholics have evidence. Evidence that cannot be argued against either. It can be disbelieved but not effectively argued against.

Intelligent design (the non-political concept) makes sense. As Michael Behe wrote: Getting design without a designer is a neat trick. I agree. Pope Benedict rejects the idea that we are just random mistakes. I would add that we are called slightly more complicated snowflakes by biologists. We’re just ambulatory bags of chemicals that assembled themselves. We are controlled by our genes who decide what we do, with the occasional input by ourselves.

In the end, God is the victor. In the meantime, we have to guard ourselves against science so called which is partly blind and seeks to integrate itself into the current materialist-reductionist worldview so that all human beings can be happy campers regardless of what are referred to as ‘mythical’ beliefs. That is what the Church objects to: not science, but mechanistic explanations for man that cannot completely answer the question of his true origin.

Fortunately, science is only one way of knowing and is supposedly silent on religion. But, too often here, the Bible and religious belief in general, are both attacked. Or, very strangely, something said by someone in the Church hierarchy is used to get Catholics to believe. For what? If you’ve got great evidence, who cares what some Church higher up thinks? But - if you’re selling an evolution - science is god worldview, then you need to put “Approved by the Catholic Church” on the label so Catholics will swallow it. And that approach – seen here – should make all Catholics rightly suspicious of what is being actually sold.

Peace,
Ed

I can not agree more with you, these are the hardest times for Faith, and we gotta be very careful about what is sold with those religious “last minute updates”.

There is no randomness in Evolution as a whole, and no Evolutionary scientist will say that there is.

Kenneth Miller supports the idea of theistic evolution, if you didn’t know that.
And it’s random mutations controlled by natural selection that create things.

It’s called “Evolution” not Darwinism. And why would anyone ‘flock’ to Evolution, it’s not like it’s some religion. It’s simply a scientific fact, nothing else, nothing more.

As Darwin pointed out, if God is controlling or directing mutations, then natural selection is superfluous. The whole point of Darwinism was to get away from the idea that God is controlling events in nature.

God could have created the Universe in such a way that through cause and effect the mutations necessary for us to evolve would take place, and they would be favoured by Natural Selection.
The whole point of Evolution was to find out, through scientific means, what caused there to be different species.
And it’s ‘Evolution’, not ‘Darwinism’.

Say what? Why in the world would any Catholic look to Darwin for theology? :rolleyes:

God works on many levels in and through his creation. He desired to get the world that we now see, but he also desired to use that world to teach us things about himself. And he also desired to make something delightful, both to himself and to us.

Again I ask you, does God not have foreknowledge of each and every random event in the universe? Does he not have the ability to control those random events if he so chooses? Could God not have arranged the initial conditions of the universe to account for each and every random mutation down through the ages?

Or is God incapable of such things?

The supposed “creator” of new features is “random mutation”. Additionally, natural selection relies on environmental factors which are random also. So, it’s not correct to claim that evolution is not random.

Kenneth Miller supports the idea of theistic evolution, if you didn’t know that.
And it’s random mutations controlled by natural selection that create things.

I’d like to see a scientific text that gives evidence supporting theistic evolution. I’d like to see it defined, actually, as a first step.

It’s called “Evolution” not Darwinism. And why would anyone ‘flock’ to Evolution, it’s not like it’s some religion. It’s simply a scientific fact, nothing else, nothing more.

Darwinism is more specific than the term “evolution”. People do flock to the theory of evolution because it serves to replace the need for religion and God’s providence.

Care to mention any of these ‘random’ factors?
It doesn’t matter if some environmental factors may be random, natural selection isn’t. I can still can claim that Evolution, as a whole, is not random. Only mutations, the spread of which is controlled, are random.

There is no such thing. I was merely pointing out Miller’s beliefs, not that of the whole scientific community.

In what way does Evolution replace the need for a religion? I’m not seeing anyone use Evolution in that way.

Why would they look to Darwin for philosophy?

Again I ask you, does God not have foreknowledge of each and every random event in the universe?

An event is only “random” because we are ignorant about its causes and future direction. God has foreknowledge of everything. More importantly, God sustains all of nature and guides all natural processes through His Providence. Darwinian theory falsely claims that all of nature was “created” by material, unintelligent processes alone.

Does he not have the ability to control those random events if he so chooses?

If you’re saying that the development of nature is not due to blind, unintelligent processes but was “controlled” by God and that God “selected and designed” nature – then you’re refuting Darwinism right there. But yes, I believe that there is evidence of God’s intelligent design in nature and thus Darwinian theory is false.

Could God not have arranged the initial conditions of the universe to account for each and every random mutation down through the ages?

Arranging initial conditions of the universe to account for every mutation is the same as arranging every mutation that occurs today. Again, if that is the case, then God is constantly creating mutations and selecting changes in organisms.

Or do you think that God does not interact with, develop, guide and influence nature today?

Or is God incapable of such things?

Where does Darwinian theory teach us the answer to this question? Where does science account for God’s influence in nature. What difference does God make? Is God’s role totally irrelevant? Is there any evidence of God’s intelligence at work in nature – in human beings, for example?

This is a lie.

We have ample evidence for evolution. If God made it look like evolution had occurred when it really hadn’t, you would be required to concede that God is a deceiver or a trickster. I don’t think you think God is deceitful, now, do you?

The art of deception has been used in warfare since ancient times. The deceiver, in this case, is a real being. Jesus talks about him. But then science enters the picture and it says, we have evidence, you can’t argue against evidence.

Catholics have evidence. Evidence that cannot be argued against either. It can be disbelieved but not effectively argued against.

I could ask you to produce said evidence. If that evidence is based on faith and beliefs, then the word “evidence” is used incorrectly.

Intelligent design (the non-political concept) makes sense. As Michael Behe wrote: Getting design without a designer is a neat trick. I agree. Pope Benedict rejects the idea that we are just random mistakes. I would add that we are called slightly more complicated snowflakes by biologists. We’re just ambulatory bags of chemicals that assembled themselves. We are controlled by our genes who decide what we do, with the occasional input by ourselves.

In the end, God is the victor. In the meantime, we have to guard ourselves against science so called which is partly blind and seeks to integrate itself into the current materialist-reductionist worldview so that all human beings can be happy campers regardless of what are referred to as ‘mythical’ beliefs. That is what the Church objects to: not science, but mechanistic explanations for man that cannot completely answer the question of his true origin.

Science says that we don’t know yet. It doesn’t state that man cannot know. New things are being discovered but of course, it needs to be subjected to trials, experiments, debunking efforts by peers, etc.
See, science seals in proven evidence and fact, but it also big enough to admit that some things we do not know yet. Not to say that we won’t find out at some point. Religion is when people claim to know something that they can’t possibly know. That’s the difference.
I can understand how the church would object to that and why religion and science can never truly co-exist…science will always require proof and evidence and that’s something that religion does not have…they deal in faith and science can’t accept that.

The argument stating that “ID is true because it makes sense” is not really able to stand up in a scientific milieu, is it?

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=328876

Sure. The randomness of environmental factors like temperature, rainfall, volcanic activity, wind, erosion and many other aspects that affect natural selection. Random mutations and random environmental conditions give us a process that is essentially random.

It doesn’t matter if some environmental factors may be random, natural selection isn’t. I can still can claim that Evolution, as a whole, is not random. Only mutations, the spread of which is controlled, are random.

As I pointed out, the conditions that cause selection are random also. If the environment, for example, does not change (and that is not predictable), then natural selection is limited by that random factor.

There is no such thing. I was merely pointing out Miller’s beliefs, not that of the whole scientific community.

I was looking also for a definition of theistic evolution. How do you define it?

In what way does Evolution replace the need for a religion? I’m not seeing anyone use Evolution in that way.

I think we can see this very strikingly in the case of Richard Dawkins and several of the prominent atheistic-evolutionists who argue against the existence of God by “proofs” of evolutionary theory. The idea is that mankind is not subject to God’s laws but only to evolutionary processes (since we are the product of blind, unintelligent forces of mutation and natural selection).

Evolution is really one of the most popular substitutes for God that there is today in our culture.

If God made it look like nature was designed by his intelligence for a purpose, but it really was created by blind, unintelligent natural forces – then God would look like a deceiver or a trickster.

According to evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, nature gives the overwhelming appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Why did God make it seem that way?

Science is a tool that can be used for good or evil. There are many who use science for evil today – to try to justify atheism or to do sinful deeds to others.

And yet, this is the same science that dropped the atomic bomb over a Catholic community in Nagasaki. This is the same science that practice abortions all over the world, the same science that brings “Good” brings “Evil” too.

Very good points.

Take a look at the dark ages, where science was restricted, and you will find a justification for the inquisition. They tried to stop what we are living now.

Interesting. You’re probably right about that. They saw the worship of reason taking away from the glory of God and tried to stop it with the methods they knew at the time.

Science today claims everything started with a big explosion, therefore chaos.
Science today also claims that intelligent life is the result of an evolution, therefore order.
This is “Order ab Chaos”, Order out of Chaos, a philosophy better known as masonry.

It’s the revolutionary spirit of Marxism also, in many ways.

This is not coming from God, open your eyes, there is no need to try to reconcile science with the words of God because what you know as science is “a hard stone to chew”, you are being cheated again.

There is no sense in trying to reconcile materialistic-nihilism, atheism and existentialism with God. Some try to reconcile Darwinism but it’s built on a false philosophical structure.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.