Re: Miller time
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:51:26 -0600
On 2008-02-20, Glenn <GlennSheldon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 19, 5:46 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-02-19, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:35 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Glenn wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
"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."
This attempt at co-opting terminology misses the mark by neglecting
intentionality, which is essential to what separates ID from
Darwinism.
Not exactly. He doesn't neglect intentionality, rather wants evolution
seen as an instrument, and a result of God's creation. Without
mentioning the word "God", of course.
I'm not sure why you add this proviso: Ken Miller is generally rather
up front about his religious beliefs, and talks about God quite frequently.
Indeed, his most famous work is entitled "Finding Darwin's God", which is
at least as much about finding Ken Miller's God as Darwin's. Try reading
this excerpt:
I didn't say that he doesn't talk about God in other contexts. Here
however, he is talking about "evolutionary design" in nature, and
speaking to the scientific community.
Then once again, I'm forced to wonder what your point precisely is.
I doubt even you know. You seem to be accusing him of having some
ulterior motive because he isn't talking about God when addressing the
scientific community about a scientific matter, and that somehow this
scientific approach to science will turn off students who can't do science
without considering their religion and God's role in creation.
It's dumb, Glenn.
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html
There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin
me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"
And I tell each of them, "Yes."
Puzzled, they ask: "What kind of God?"
Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but
precise answer to that question. And, eventually I found it. I
believe in Darwin's God.
I doubt he thinks this will
convert fundies, but there is a crowd of "theistic evolutionists" like
Miller who justify existence of a Creator in this way, whispering in
private that God set the whole universe, with all it's laws, in
motion, designed for certain results.
You are accusing Miller of a cowardice that he doesn't exhibit. He doesn't
whisper in private: he writes in public and accepts debate and criticism.
His theism isn't hidden away: it's out there for all to see.
Show me one journal article where he mentions God.
Why would he mention God in a (presmably you mean) a science journal?
Again, you pass
over who he is speaking to: "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." Ne mention of any designer, except evolution and
"natural law".
That you are seemingly incapable of understanding his point doesn't mean
that it isn't clearly made.
Ken Miller is a Professor of Biology. He teaches biology classes. he
was addressing the AAAS. He appears to believe his religious faith is
not a matter that science can adequately address. I think it's a silly
notion myself, but it's a genuine one. If you don't agree with him, go
ahead and argue against what he says, but it's lazy cowardice to simply
slander him in the way you did.
This likely a similar form of an argument of emergence, leaving it up
to the student to put "guided" and "God" in his own personal copy of
the book.
The excerpt above contains the word "God" fifty times. I presume the
book has a few more.
And he might think that future generations, or the kids of today,
would not be so put off by "unguided" evolution that they turn from
science.
I'm curious: why would students be put off particularly by "unguided"
evolution, especially since that is precisely what evidence suggest
occurs?
You are quite curious. But to let Miller answer: ""People want to
believe that life isn't purposeless and random."
They'd like to believe that Santa comes and gives them toys if they are good
too. Most people don't reject a career in retail when they find that their
childish notions aren't true.
I'll leave you with
your idiotic atheistic assumption that science suggests that evolution
is unguided.
It isn't an assumption: it's a conclusion based upon the evidence.
The evidence does suggest that evolution is unguided. Miller would agree,
and since he isn't an atheist, I'd say you have to explain why you labelled
it "atheistic", since obviously his theistic beliefs are compatible with it.
Or perhaps you are an idiot atheist with no idea of reality.Just take "God" out of the equation, and the world is his footstool. I
doubt he realizes the foolishness and antichristian nature of this
suggestive yet exclusionary theology. But perhaps he is an atheist in
disguise who thinks religion is foolish, and believes the religious
can fool themselves or be fooled long enough to evolve out of their
foolisness.
Or, perhaps you are the bigoted simpleton that you appear to be with
every posting.
Nope, that's not. Must be you.
Mark
.
- References:
- Miller time
- From: Glenn
- Re: Miller time
- From: Treus
- Re: Miller time
- From: Glenn
- Re: Miller time
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Miller time
- From: Glenn
- Miller time
- Prev by Date: Re: News: You say you want some evolution? Say your prayers.
- Next by Date: Re: More Luskin: The inefficacy of intelligent design is evidence for
- Previous by thread: Re: Miller time
- Next by thread: Re: Miller time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
