My beef with Ken Miller, and the strawman that was ID at Dover:
"At the Dover trial, Ken Miller asserted under oath that intelligent design is merely “a negative argument against evolution” which requires an appeal to the supernatural: “It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.”6 Dr. Miller even stated this holds true in all cases: “The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design.”"
It's hard to describe his testimony as anything other than perjury. He is certainly an intelligent guy, and would know that his rendition does not match contemporary ID theory.
Really? As others pointed out, the #1 criticism of Bio-Complexity
from creationists was that it spent all its time arguing against evolution, rather than presenting positive evidence for intelligent design. Because of course it did! Intelligent design is
unfalsifiable. There is no possible state of the universe that an omnipotent supernatural creator
couldn't bring about. All it has to work with is "win by default", and this is, first and foremost, what we see in its articles: "Evolution couldn't happen because of X", "The cambrian explosion makes no sense in the evolutionary model", "Evolution cannot produce the information in DNA", et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Creation science is not the same thing as ID.
Another thing the Dover trial showed very clearly: ID is just creationism in a lab coat.
And really, the dust-up and retraction was political. Watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".
No, I'm sorry, the dust-up surrounding Meyers's paper was
not political.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html
Meyer's paper was filled with
trivial errors that any decent peer-reviewer
should have picked up on. The fact that Sternberg pushed this through in a journal ill-suited for it with poor peer review makes it a very weak paper to cite. You might as well be citing Soon & Baliunas.
As for Expelled, virtually every aspect of the movie has been
thoroughly debunked.
Oh look, something
else you're just objectively wrong about. The term "monotonous" is not just applicable, it wouldn't surprise me if it was invented to describe Stein's drawling tones. This is less "finding Pixels hilarious" (which is still horribly wrong, just for a very different reason) and more "finding a reading of the Encyclopedia Brittanica by a robot hilarious".