Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[Crackingham]

Dover Area School District's federal trial began yesterday in Harrisburg with talk ranging from divine intervention and the Boston Red Sox to aliens and bacterial flagellum. After about 10 months of waiting, the court case against the district and its board opened in Middle District Judge John E. Jones III's courtroom with statements from lawyers and several hours of expert testimony from biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller.

On one side of the aisle, several plaintiffs packed themselves in wooden benches behind a row of attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Pepper Hamilton LLC and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. On the other side of the aisle, nine school board members, only three of whom were on the board when it voted 6-3 to include a statement on intelligent design in biology classes, piled in behind lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center. Assistant superintendent Michael Baksa and superintendent Richard Nilsen shared a bench with Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor expected to take the stand in defense of intelligent design.

SNIP

Miller, whose resume is several pages long and includes a stint as a professor at Harvard University, was the first witness called for the parents. Miller co-wrote the Prentice Hall textbook "Biology" with professor Joe Levine. The book is used by 35 percent of the high school students in the United States, Miller said. His were some of the thousands of biology books in which school officials in Cobb County, Ga., ordered stickers to be placed, warning that evolution is only a theory, "not a fact." Miller also testified in a lawsuit filed by Cobb County parents, and a judge later ordered that the stickers be removed.

Yesterday, the scientist's testimony was at times dominated by scientific terminology, though he jokingly told ACLU attorney Witold Walczak he would do his best to explain things in the layman's terms he uses with his mother.

Miller said intelligent design supporters think an intelligent designer must have been involved in the creation of life because science can't yet prove how everything evolved. He said the intelligent design idea that birds were created with beaks, feathers and wings and fish were born with fins is a creationist argument.

Intelligent design supporters often cite "irreducible complexity" in their research, he said. "Irreducible complexity" means that a living thing can't be reduced by any part or it won't work at all. So those living things could not have evolved in the way Darwin suggested; they had to be created with all of their existing parts, Miller said.

Intelligent design proponents often cite the bacterial flagellum, a bacterium with a tail that propels it, Miller said. Behe and his colleagues claim bacterial flagellum had to be created with all of its parts because it couldn't function if any of them were taken away, Miller testified. But scientists have proved that the bacterial flagellum can be reduced to a smaller being, a little organism that operates in a manner similar to a syringe, Miller said.

One of the biggest problems with the scientific viability of intelligent design is there is no way to experiment with the presence of a supernatural being because science only deals with the natural world and theories that are testable, Miller said.

Some people might suspect divine intervention last year when the Boston Red Sox came back to win the World Series after losing three games in a row to the New York Yankees in the playoffs. It may have been, but that's not science, he said. And intelligent design proponents haven't named the "intelligent being" behind their supposition, Miller said. They have suggested, among other things, that it could be aliens, he said. He said there is no evidence to prove intelligent design, so its proponents just try to poke holes in the theory of evolution.

[Junior]

Well, there was that somewhat lucrative Texas Instrument offer, IIRC...

[Right Wing Professor]

The one big hang up the evo crowd has is their frevrent hatred of Israel, what is up with that?

Please stop making up bare-faced lies.

[Right Wing Professor]

Did you sleep through Sunday school when they discussed the Decalogue? Or does "thou shalt not bear false witness" perchance ring a bell?

That's why they want them publicly displayed everywhere, because they forget them so often.

[Right Wing Professor]

Hey, the whole world got flooded because there were wicked men - by comparison, a believer or two getting caught in the cosmic bug zapper directed at you is no big deal ;)

Pretty inefficient if you ask me. After all, when the CIA wanted to exterminate African Americans, they invented crack cocaine and the AIDS virus. You;d think an omnipotent being could come up with equally creative solutions.

[Diamond]

Your quoting Chomsky? Wow. Do you know who he is?

Yes. Quoting an opponent authority (on linguistics in this case) can be an effective response.

Cordially,

[ex-snook]

"So how did the Universe and all its predictability evolve? Inquiring minds want to know that first."

Check into Cosmology and Quantum physics for that one.

Then God is the comprehensive explanation for both life [evolved or not] and the universe. Evolution, cosmology, quantum physics are subsets. Life and the universe can't be separated. They both exist. They go togther like a horse and carriage. One must check out the whole elephant.

[RunningWolf]

To the evo gang. Who's idea of a joke is it to keep putting in these your mom is an ape keywords and such.

Is this more demonstration of the highly educated keen sophisticated minds you guys have,

WHAT GOOFBALLS!! LOL HA HA HA.

Wolf

[untrained skeptic]

"There's no way to test for devine intervention, that's why it's not scientific."

There's no way to test for evolution over millions of years either.

You can check fossil records and find some evidence of evolution. However, it's a huge jump of faith to extrapolate that and say that the world evolved from some form of primordial sludge at the beginning of time. Even then evolution cannot explain where that primordial sludge came from.

Evolution simply can't explain how the things got there that started evolving, or what set them on that path.

If not being able to be proven makes it not be science, evolution is not science.

There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.

Excluding intelligent design as a possible theory isn't science. It's the suppression of science.

"Right. You also have to have a means of attempting to prove or disprove it."

Actually we don't have the means to prove or disprove scientific theories, or they're no longer theories. If we can prove it it is considered a law, not a theory. The scientific process is the search for a way to prove or disprove a theory.

"For the perhaps billionth time this month, no scientific theory is ever proven. Why should the theory of evolution be different?"

Exactly, you just contradicted your assertion that intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because it we haven't found a way to prove it.

" ID does not rise to the level of a scientific theory because it can't be tested by any known method, and it predicts nothing."

Absolute BS. How can you test that the world evolved from nothing at the beginning of time?

"That people who do not accept ID believe that God does not exist is contrary to fact. There are many right here on FR who believe in God, who understand that the theory of evolution is science, and that ID isn't."

Then they apparently don't know what science is. There isn't an invisible wall between science and religion. A honest scientist will tell you that there's much more about this world that we don't understand than we do understand.

This is why PHDs are Doctorates of Philosophy in a certain discipline. This is because the more you learn, the more you realize how little we really know. If you forget that and close yourself off from possible theories because of dogma, you're limited your ability to learn through the scientific method.

ID is a valid scientific theory.
Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

People who say that one or the other is not are not doing so on the basis of science, but on the basis of blind faith. That may be faith in God, or faith in something else.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Ten Thousand Fingers of Dr Lao

[Diamond]

Do tell me, then, how a person was an atheist before Darwin?

Darwin didn't invent evolution or atheism. I'm sure there were atheists before Darwin, but here I think Dawkins and Gould explain it best:

"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dawkins R. "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.6).

"Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." "So Cleverly Kind an Animal," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London UK, 1991, reprint, p.267).

Does anyone here disagree with the proposition that the idea that the universe is not designed is tantamount to atheism?

Cordially,

[bondserv]

If you would spend as much time reading real science books as you do reading charlatan pseudo science, you would know something and wouldn't make a fool of your self posting nonsense like this on line for everyone in the world to read.

I have been intensely researching this topic for over three years. Genetics is the physical program that produces, manages and sustains living organisms to a level that makes our most sophisticated pharmaceutical labs look like a caveman's blacksmith shop. The evo's on this forum have presented links to every potential evidence in support of evolution and I have taken time to examine the claims and to understand what the scientists making the claims really have discovered (picking out the data from the interpretation).

Talk Origins has a section where they try to claim there is evidence of new species, but they give no evidence of increased complexity. A horizontal mutation that has damaged existing genetic information to produce an altered plant which exhibits no new features is the same as me bumping the keyboard at a Ford factory slightly altering the behavior of the robotic painter to paint the hoods blue when the rest of the car is red. A red car with a blue hood isn't an increase in complexity. The robot is using preexisting information incorrectly, not coding for a new direction in design. They claim this explains how life became so complex. NOT!

The key to the life we see around us is complex information. The thing that makes an organism more complex is organized intelligent information. The evidence screams that the information in living creatures is currently experiencing chaotic disorganization.

[Diamond]

... See, for example, Joseph Stalin...

I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
'What book is that?' I enquired.
'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me.    G. Glurdjidze in  The Life of Joseph Stalin  (1940)  p.8-9

  link

Moreover, even if it were true, which it most certainly isn't, so what?

The point it that if the universe was not designed, what other alternative is there other than atheism?

Cordially,

[balrog666]

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to fabricate this lie? Show ONE instance on these crevo threads where an evolutionist expresses hatred for Israel or for Jews. Poisoning the well with accusations of antisemitism is beneath even you. Put up or shut up.

I suspect the clap is effecting his trap.

[Dimensio]

Because if there were no absolute moral truth, as Darwinism presupposes, then you wouldn't be subject to any ultimate judgment or consequences.

Lacking of "ultimate" consequences doesn't mean that there won't be consequences at all. And you still haven't explained why I would actually want to do such a thing. Are you saying that you would want to do such things if you didn't believe in "ultimate judgement"? If so, then you're projecting to suggest that everyone is that way. Not all of us are deranged sociopaths like you.

[Dimensio]

If not being able to be proven makes it not be science

Well, it's a good thing then that "not being able to be proven" does not "make it not be science". Absolutely nothing in science is ever "proven" true.

There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.

Making up an answer of "an all-powerful supernatural entity did it" is a cop-out, not an explanation. Just because you can explain absolutely anything with it doesn't mean that it's really "better".

Excluding intelligent design as a possible theory isn't science. It's the suppression of science.

What hypothetical observation would falsify Intelligent Design? Be specific. If there are absolutely no hypothetical conditions under which Intelligent Design could be proven false, then Intelligent Design is not science.

Actually we don't have the means to prove or disprove scientific theories, or they're no longer theories. If we can prove it it is considered a law, not a theory.

You shouldn't attempt to argue science if you don't even understand how science operates. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories. Laws and theories are two different kinds of statements. Laws are generalizations about observations from which future observations are predicted; the "law" of gravity is a generalization about how gravity has been observed to operate in the past from which future predictions about gravitational operation can be made. Theories are an attempt to explain the cause behind observed phenomenon. The "theory" of gravity is an attempt to explain why we have made the consistent observations explained by the law of gravity. Laws are not more "certain" than theories. In fact, some laws have proven false or inadequate (Newton's "Laws" of motion don't apply universally, nor does his "Law of Universal Gravitation").

Absolute BS. How can you test that the world evolved from nothing at the beginning of time?

There's no theory that the world itself "evolved". Please try to understand the scope of evolution before launching an attack on it.

There isn't an invisible wall between science and religion.

Actually, science can only address the natural universe. It cannot address the supernatural in any way. If a religion touches on the supernatural -- and most do -- then science cannot involve itself.

ID is a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

What hypothetical observation would falsify "ID theory"?

[Dimensio]

Evolution, cosmology, quantum physics are subsets. Life and the universe can't be separated. They both exist. They go togther like a horse and carriage. One must check out the whole elephant.

Then God is the comprehensive explanation for both life [evolved or not] and the universe.

No, "God" -- to whichever one you refer (remember that several thousand or hundred-thousand have been worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history) is a cop-out. It's an "I don't know what happened, so it must have been this divine super-being". That's not an explanation, that's giving up and making up an all-encompassing explanation despite having no evidence for it. You can play semantic games all you want, but the theory of evolution does not address cosmology. You only look dishonest when you try to claim that evolution must address issues outside of its scope.

[RunningWolf]

Why he should explain why you would actually want to do such a thing, when he has not even said he that would actually want to do such a thing.

Man this is just goofy logic Dimensio. You then ask a hypothetical question based on something he did not say, and then fill in your own answer with it with that Tony is a deranged sociopath.

That is just real Goofy Dimensio. Is this more of cosmo-evo evo cosmo cult thinking of the flying spaghetti monster, cause thats about how goofy it sounds.

Do we need to tell you why you should tie your shoes? Do you even wear shoes?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

He doesn't look dishonest.

He makes sense, a whole lot more sense than Dimensio cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult thinking of the flying spaghetti monster sense.

Whoo Boy!!

What a goofball!

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I suspect the clap is effecting his trap."

I notice he hasn't answered for his lie yet. I won't hold my breath.

[Diamond]

Interesting that you quote Chomsky from 1972, 33 years ago. You'd have gotten a very different response from him in more recent years. We've discovered that a wide range of animals use language. They're not as good at it as we are, of course, but use it they do.

The degree of difference is in kind. Animals do not have the software or the hardware for language in the sense that humans do. The difference is fundamental, not just in degree. Not to denigrate them, but animals do not have a special region in the brain devoted to language and they lack the anatomy to speak the words they may think. Animals don't ask questions. The animals that can learn and even use some aspects of human language can only do so because of the environment provided by their human trainers.

‘So this is the real mystery.  Even under these loosened criteria, there are no simple languages used among other species, though there are many other equally or more complicated modes of communication.  Why not?  And the problem is even more counterintuitive when we consider the almost insurmountable difficulties of teaching language to other species.  This is surprising, because there are many clever species.  Though researchers report that language-like communication has been taught to nonhuman species, even the best results are not above legitimate challenges, and the fact that it is difficult to prove whether or not some of these efforts have succeeded attests to the rather limited scope of the resulting behaviors, as well as to deep disagreements about what exactly constitutes language-like behavior.’
Deacon, T., The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 25, 1997.

Cordially,