Kenneth Miller: "We suck"

[Hydra009]

ID is a good compromise. You cannot tell what the creator is like, and there are only two options. Either it required intelligence or it didn't. Two positions, so you must teach both.

Ok, let's teach Intelligent Falling, then. Are you okay with that?

 

[Big Rob]

There is an easy solution to this.

Is this solution final, by chance?

 

[nvxplorer]

ID is a good compromise. You cannot tell what the creator is like, and there are only two options. Either it required intelligence or it didn't. Two positions, so you must teach both.

This seems flimsy even on philosophical grounds. The creator could have created instinctively, without need for intelligence. Or there could have been a swarm of creators working in concert. One thing you got right; you cannot tell what the creator is like, but I’m sure you’ll tell us anyway.

 

[c'mon sense]

We discussed Dawkins [...] He's magnificent at addressing evolution (even if I disagree with he love affair with the gene)[...]

He merely argues that the gene has "a life of its own". Organisms are temporary associations of genes and the organism a useful byproduct of gene joint "efforts".
Dawkins argues for a different view on nature. It's not easy to talk in anthropomorphic terms about a non-anthropomorphic Universe. This is where he clashes with religion, which is the ultimate humanization attempt on nature: everything revolves around us. Geocentrism and Egocentrism are interchangeable.

 

[c'mon sense]

The creator could have created instinctively, without need for intelligence.

That's brilliant.

 

[USincognito]

He merely argues that the gene has "a life of its own". Organisms are temporary associations of genes and the organism a useful byproduct of gene joint "efforts".
Dawkins argues for a different view on nature. It's not easy to talk in anthropomorphic terms about a non-anthropomorphic Universe. This is where he clashes with religion, which is the ultimate humanization attempt on nature: everything revolves around us. Geocentrism and Egocentrism are interchangeable.

Then perhaps I've misread him over the years (at least regarding his focus on the gene), since I see nuture and nature being coequal in terms of our behaviors, even if the effects of the nuture (social bahavior, altruism) are the products of our efforts to preserve ourselves in order to further facilitate procreation.

As for myself, I don't view the Universe, or even the Earth in anthropomorphic terms - except for how cute I find mammals. But I don't see the entirety of evolutionary history as the attempt for preservation of genetic purity, since the Modern Synthesis is based on mutations the genes have no control over, and that sexual selection (something Dawkins addresses in the "Rotifer's Tale") inherently dilutes DNA.

I think his position, much like Gould's Punk Eek is definately worthy of consideration, discussion and study, but as yet I don't agree with either fully. Similarly, I found Sagan's politics in the 1980s off putting. None the less, all three are powerful advocates of evolution and popularizers of science.

 

[c'mon sense]

[...] But I don't see the entirety of evolutionary history as the attempt for preservation of genetic purity, since the Modern Synthesis is based on mutations the genes have no control over, and that sexual selection (something Dawkins addresses in the "Rotifer's Tale") inherently dilutes DNA.
[...]

No, neither does Dawkins see evolutionary history as an attempt for "genetic purity" preservation. I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

Genes ARE however the sole survivors since they transcend the individual lifecycle of an organism. There are newer genes (teams) and very old ones. The very old ones have been around probably ever since life first got kickstarted. As species evolve genes continually form new associations. While these associations (individuals and species) are fleeting, genes are virtually eternal in comparison.

Nurture and nature feed on each other. DNA is not a blueprint, it is a chemical programme. Without environmental stimuli DNA is dead.
It's fashionable nowadays to talk of a gene for everything. I don't think this is right. There is never a single genetic "quant", so to speak, responsible for any of our traits or natural tendencies taken in isolation. There are complex interactions of different genetic units and the sum-total of their individual input results in who we are. We are gene complexes.

 

[stumpjumper]

ID is a good compromise. You cannot tell what the creator is like, and there are only two options. Either it required intelligence or it didn't. Two positions, so you must teach both.

ID might be a decent philosophy but as far as I can tell it doesn't make any scientific claims. The best Behe has come up with is that certain features are IC even though others have answered his argument. Miller has a good mechanism for the biochemical argument that Behe offers.

I personally accept evolution as the mechanism for our biological emergence and follow a theology of evolution as put out by John Haught and others. I see no reason to have ID taught in science class.

 

[stumpjumper]

I can't say the blame is equal, since there are far more preach.. er.. Creationist advocates who suggest that evolution=atheism than scientists. Methodoligical Naturalism is a necessity for the Scientific Method to work, but it doesn't mean metaphysical naturalism is the logical conclusion of that necessary approach.

Well living in Philly you rarely meet YEC's so maybe I underestimate their influence on this debate. The only time I really see their views expressed is in print and in these discussions. Alot of the reformed theologies require a literal genesis and I'm sure that is one of the sources of this problem. I've always said I would have a lot more respect for Ken Hamm if he would feed the poor and push for social equality rather than building his own museums.

Maybe more books like Bill Brysons that put science into an accessable format would also help. I do think Dawkins is a good writer for science but I can't say I agree with his philosophy.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I think Miller is being too hard on himself and his fellow scientists with the "we suck" comment. Even if we had an army of Carl Sagans out there popularizing science we would still see cases like Dover and all the other creationist agitation. This is because the agitators are religious fundamentalists who found religion first, then decided to go out and slay Satan's great dragon of Evolution. No amount of quality education or science popularization can deter these clowns. At best, all we can hope for is to convince the voting public not to put such clowns in a position of power -- and that decision has nothing to do with science. Heck, in the late 70s and early 80s, when Sagan was at his popularizing best, the portion of the US population buying creationism was no different than it is today.

 

[Illuminatus]

Kenneth Miller: "We suck"

Finally, something I can agree with him on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Living in Pa, I have been following the ID debate in the newspapers and on NPR. In the Philadelphia Inquirer today they had a good article about the trial and I ran across these quotes by Kenneth Miller author of Finding Darwins God (good book btw): "We suck at communicating information about evolution and many other aspects of science."

There is a very good reason for this. A majority of scientists are trying to discover things and advance their field. Most scientific fields are very advanced and rely on very specific language, complicated theories, and complex problems. Once a scientist has learned to cope with the volumes of data in their little corner of science there is no reason to make this personal knowledge understandable to a layperson. The people you want to convince are scientists in your little corner of science, not the general public.

Communicating with the public is not part of a scientist's training. They are trained to talk to other scientists. The popularizing of science by scientists such as Sagan is left to a few. What you find is that a scientist is either naturally adept at communicating science to the general public or they learn over years of trying.

I can understand why the general public looks at science as a bunch of condescending (insert favorite word here). To some extent it is true. However, for science to progress scientists have to speak in scientific terms, something that is not understood by the average Joe. If all scientists did was make science understandable to the average Joe then all progress would stop.

I personally think the blame is shared equally with groups like AIG and strict materialists who embed scientific information into metaphysical naturalism. So what say you? Is the blame shared equally? Personally, I wish Christians would focus more on the here and now rather than the distant past. I also wish people like Dawkins would stop calling the religious side of our population ignorant.

At least strict materialists get their science right. The same can't be said for AiG.

 

[Jet Black]

Yeah? And who's going to fund it?

You can pretend that science is dissassociated from society if you like, but all research is done by human beings. We cannot help but allow our biases alter the interpretations of data that are produced. Imagining this not to be the case may feel more comfortable, but it won't solve any problems.

bear in mind that funding is not done on purely political grounds. there has to be return. This means that industry will often fund things, even if government does not, because industry can make money from it. Of course this is where things like ID fall flat, because there are no returns.

 

[DailyBlessings]

bear in mind that funding is not done on purely political grounds. there has to be return. This means that industry will often fund things, even if government does not, because industry can make money from it. Of course this is where things like ID fall flat, because there are no returns.

Ah, as far as I am concerned, research with a specific industrial purpose is not that much better.