1. Comment #193359 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Different name, same old crap.[edit] creationism=ID=strength and weaknesses.

I'm not a big K. Miller fan, but he has been useful lately. Good front man.

edit: I liked the groan when the announcer said "let's take some questions from the audience".

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #193362 by moderndaythomas on June 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm

On legislation to teach the controversy in classrooms Kenneth Miller: "An intellectual welfare for an idea that can't make it on its own"
"analyze the strengths and weaknesses of everything"

That is beautiful!

I said this before, teach the controversy. Teach it all!

Creationists are dogs that shit everywhere, rub their nose in it.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

3. Comment #193366 by Spinoza on June 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

What the FUCK does being a 'fan' of someone have to do with anything?

Other Comments by Spinoza

4. Comment #193370 by thewhitepearl on June 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

"It tells the student that you can't trust the scientific process"

Exactly. I was a victim of similiar cock and bull stories growing up.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

5. Comment #193374 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Spinoza

There was a reason why they had Miller testify at the Dover trial, where he did a good job. My only problem with him, is he is not as outspoken against religion as a Dawkins or a Hitchens would be. But I stated that this is a good thing if one needs to smooth things over at a trial, for example. Even Richard has said, that if he testified, the trial may have gone the other way.

[edit] Maybe I should clarify. I enjoy K. Miller as a scientist, but he is a Roman Catholic, and sometimes he makes statements that try to link religion and science, that works for some people, just not for me.[end edit]

You seem to get agitated fairly easily for no reason. I am not a fan of his, I wouldn't buy his book, I agree with alot he has to say though, plain and simple. If you don't like it, so what?

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #193377 by thewhitepearl on June 15, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Spinoza why so hostile today? It was an opinion that's all.

You know thats what we do. State our opinions.

UH-OH I just got to the pastor calling in..oh wait he accepts the evolution theory..interesting..

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

7. Comment #193381 by Shergar on June 15, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Another attempt by the Creationists to undermine one of the greatest leaps forward in mankind's understanding of our whole existence. Kenneth Miller fights our corner fluently and with the casual grace of someone who knows his subject inside out.

How long before we are fighting this same fight here in Britain against this insidious affront to reason and true scientific analysis of ideas? Can you imagine any of our leading politicians (or ex prime-minister??) openly supporting faith schools and the promotion of …….. DOH

Other Comments by Shergar

8. Comment #193400 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

How come some people get those weird symbols in their posts? The last word in Shergar's post is "?".

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #193403 by EvidenceOnly on June 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I saw a bumper sticker on a car today that said:

"If evolution is outlawed, then only outlaws will evolve".

We're getting the same effect by dumbing down science so that the GodDidIt-ists and the IDiots have an easier time teaching their nonsense.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

10. Comment #193408 by Quine on June 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Ken Miller is a great resource and I often refer the religious people I meet to his videos and writings.

Other Comments by Quine

11. Comment #193409 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm

EvidenceOnly

Off topic, but I saw a picture of a sermon sign outside a church posted somewhere, might have been here. The sign read:

Sermons

9 A.M.......Jesus walks on water.


11 A.M......Looking for Jesus.

Other Comments by mordacious1

12. Comment #193413 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm

9 A.M.......Jesus walks on water.


11 A.M......Looking for Jesus.

HAAAA! Coffee, screen, damn!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

13. Comment #193414 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I've found Ken Miller very useful indeed. I see it as all part of Sam Harris's "going under the radar" strategy. We need to do it more. I often concede a deist God, for instance, just to get in close.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

14. Comment #193416 by fizhburn on June 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm

phil,

Don't you then have to smell their fear?

Unlike napalm, fear smells more like a latrine than victory.

Other Comments by fizhburn

15. Comment #193417 by FightingFalcon on June 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I got into a discussion on religion recently in my office and I got the "it's only a theory" line from one of my co-workers when I said that evolution belongs in science classes and creationism doesn't.

I wanted to punch my computer screen...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

16. Comment #193420 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm

fizhburn

I normally would but usefully I lost some of my sense of smell recently to a viral infection. I seem to have lost only the nasty stuff. (I'm saving a fortune on deodorants!)

But I see the fear in their eyes. To a man and a woman they are all pessimists about the world. Despite statistics they see only a corrosive decline. They've all got their fingers crossed for something better on the other side.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #193422 by Buddha on June 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Kenneth Miller is an excellent defender of science and seems to be a very decent and honourable chap - regardless of his other interest in bronze-age mythology.

After all, many vicars and bishops here in the UK are atheist or agnostic, so I suppose it just boils down to ying and yang.

Other Comments by Buddha

18. Comment #193433 by Border Collie on June 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

OK, let's "teach the controversy" in every subject. How 'bout math and reading. I assert that Dick, Jane, Spot & Puff equal four entities. Now, surely, there is someone out there to challenge this assertion. I mean, maybe the rest of us have missed something. What has happened to the NPR announcers & interviewers? I thought NPR was aimed at intelligent people.

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #193436 by LaTomate on June 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm

True, Ken Miller is a deist, but he's a very good scientist and a great speaker.

Check out his talks, "God, Darwin, and Design", if you haven't done so yet:

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FF5EA2BF6382BC08

Other Comments by LaTomate

20. Comment #193437 by rod-the-farmer on June 15, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I like the idea the fundies propose, to teach the "strengths & weaknesses". I would then force them to lay out EXACTLY the curriculum points for each, in particular the strengths of evolution. I think we can all guess the weaknesses they suggest, but if THEY want to teach the strengths, please let us have them, in writing. Both sides now, as the song said. I find it helps a great deal to pin them down, when they offer vague ideas. Show us in writing what you mean.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

21. Comment #193488 by AoClay on June 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Ken Miller really amazes me with how he can be so smart and still believe in such crap. It must weigh on his mind to be in the same crowd as a lot of crap (and a lot of fascists). I hope he's a deist that just wants to go under the radar or something, but that's probably condescending. Either way, fight the good fight Ken!

Other Comments by AoClay

22. Comment #193493 by Nova on June 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm

phil rimmer:

I've found Ken Miller very useful indeed. I see it as all part of Sam Harris's "going under the radar" strategy. We need to do it more. I often concede a deist God, for instance, just to get in close.

The problem I have with it is it fails to recognize that religion is not random falsehood which manifests in many areas which individuals or small groups can eliminate, it's a large scale phenomenon of poor thinking. There needs to be organization to stop it as a phenomenon - ironically my point is that we need THE END OF FAITH but as such a widespread phenomenon Sam's approach would be the worst way to try to make our way to what his book's title proclaims precisely because it would destroy the we altogether.

Without an organized rationalism movement there is no consensus or resource to research what has been reached through critical thinking and what has been accepted on tradition, if we did what Sam did and just disorganized and eliminated irrationality where we saw it we would quickly lose form and merge with everyone else with their own agendas, it would be impossible to tell who was a rationalist and who wasn't and this would be fine if there was only random falsehood around and almost everyone was trying to eliminate it, but the fact is is that there is organized falsehood and it is being actively propagated and adapts to methods to eliminate it, so we need organization to identify its status and coordinate moves against it.

LaTomate:

Ken Miller is a deist

No he isn't this is wishful thinking, that would be a colossal dissent from Catholicism. He may dissent with great difficulty from some of the Vatican's decrees but no Catholic can go completely against them because then by definition they are no longer Catholic. We must be aware he is only with us on one front because Catholicism is evil.

AoClay:

I hope he's a deist that just wants to go under the radar or something, but that's probably condescending

He could equally be an atheist under the radar and it is not at all condescending to wish someone was not infected with evil. Unfortunately, because I agree he's smart and a powerful advocate for evolution, it is wishful thinking as I said earlier.

Other Comments by Nova

23. Comment #193495 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Ken Miller a deist?

As a roman catholic, I wonder if he goes into the little box to confess his sins. If he believes that an invisible being can forgive his sins, then he's not a deist.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #193517 by foxfire on June 15, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Josh, thanks for posting the NPR interview - Miller is scheduled for the Colbert Report tomorrow (Monday 6/16/08). My copy of the book arrived several days ago and made it to the top of the read pile. I've just started and am finding it an excellent read.

Unfortunately, the anti-evolution scum haven't given up after Dover and are now inundating state legislatures with moronic "academic freedom" bills to "promote critical thinking skills".

SSDD......

Other Comments by foxfire

25. Comment #193530 by catskill on June 15, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Hey FightingFalcon - I usually tell anyone that uses the 'just a theory' line that I am glad they said so because it absolutely proves they have no idea what they are talking about. Its hard to get mad when you are laughing.

"atomic theory states that all matter is composed of atoms but I am not convinced, after all, its just a theory"

Other Comments by catskill

26. Comment #193536 by Saerain on June 15, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I sometimes wonder if their sense of grammar allows them to believe that 'critical thinking' means being critical of thinking.

Other Comments by Saerain

27. Comment #193554 by hopeful on June 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm

I thought it was quite interesting when one religious caller used the phrase "what about the fossil record?"

He was so obviously repeating a stock phrase that he had been fed, as if just using these two magic little words is sufficient to make a powerful counter-argument.

I think it really shows how widely and routinely flawed anti-evolution arguments are propagated, and how they are dished out as small easy to handle packages - "Anti-Evolution for Dummies".

Other Comments by hopeful

28. Comment #193718 by Richard Dawkins on June 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

What a superb performance by Kenneth Miller. Congratulations to him. He is just so incredibly good at this, and he comes across as such a nice man. But how weird that he is a theist - not deist - an allegedly devout Roman Catholic. I wonder what he really believes. When I challenged him on it, in public, he said, loudly and confidently, "Richard, there's a REASON it's called FAITH!" I find that very interesting but I surely don't understand it.

Anyway, this radio interview is brilliant. I am sure I can learn from his technique.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

29. Comment #193730 by AtheistJon on June 16, 2008 at 1:02 am

Yeah, this was a good interview by Kenneth Miller.

I think one of the techniques that Kenneth understands well, and used effectively here was a technique taught to me also during a presentation training which I needed for my job. It's called, "building rapport with your audience". For example, when Matt called in, Kenneth went out of his way to congratulate Matt for being from Colorado where he had also studied and how he wished a person from that place all the best.

Richard, if I may say so, when you deal with hostile audiences, you are definitely a nice guy (you are being yourself), but you tend not to do that rapport building (have you ever done that?). Anyway, maybe you think it is a sneaky (dishonest/American) thing to do... but I don't think it is. As long as you can honestly say something nice to somebody (something that you honestly feel that you share in common (even if he's an idiotic fundamentalist or murderous islamic zealot), it's like giving the person sugar, before you give them the medicine.

I'm just thinking back to the "Root of all Evil" episode, where you interviewed that NYC Jewish guy who had converted to radical Islam and who told you that he hated Atheists. Perhaps you wanted to get that reaction (i.e. his inner feelings), but if you had done some sort of rapport building with him first, maybe he wouldn't have said that.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

30. Comment #193733 by beeline on June 16, 2008 at 1:10 am

I think that "strengths and weaknesses" DO need to be taught, but only in a 'higher up' course about the methods of science generally. In fact, the philosophy of science should come a long time before any actual science is taught: you just need to introduce the modes of reasoning such as those introduced in Sagan's "Dragon in the Garage" sketch.

Also, if "strengths and weaknesses" are taught in the proper place - at the 'top' of the science curriculum, it will not leave open a door for ID Creationists to wheel in their barrows of crap, because it won't be focusing specifically on evolution.

And we all know that there aren't any ID-Creationist cabals that like to focus on Newton's Laws, or electromagnetism, or calculus, or energy conservation, or quantum mechanics, or... (etc etc etc)

Teach the controversy, but teach it 'higher up' to show that really there is none.

Other Comments by beeline

31. Comment #193736 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 1:21 am

nova

my point is that we need THE END OF FAITH

Yes, but I'm not prepared to wait. I want a lot of changes to the public bahaviour of religites NOW. I wish to stop un-evidenced intrusions into the public space, such as Creationism. I don't have to disprove the existence of a non-existent entity BEFORE I can proceed.

I actually believe direct assaults on faith using reason are misguided, given that faith per se is unreasonable. Break the habit of acting on faith though (and replace it with the habit of acting on evidence so that full cooperation within society is possible) and its importance in the mind will wither...

beeline

But within the scientific community there is NO controversy! Not one decent scientific paper. Not one falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

32. Comment #193741 by Hamish on June 16, 2008 at 1:38 am

Modernity is less threatened by the intelligent design theorists, who try to prove their case in terms of evidence and observation, than by those who challenge the process of science itself.

When one cannot explain something in terms of empirical evidence then, in the case of the "reasonable" religionists, they reject the epistemology itself. Religion is not merely a challenge to evidence, but a challenge to reason and to what "evidence" actually means.

I certainly don't believe that Professor Miller, an evolutionary biologist, rejects reason and the scientific method. But he somehow manages to accept another epistemology, an irrational one, and in doing so, particularly given his public prominence as a scientist, he does inadvertently undermine the legitimacy of scientific knowledge.

At least the claims of the biblical literalists are falsifiable!


Reasonably on topic: anyone in Australia might be interested in watching the Sir David Attenborough interview on Andrew Denton's new show tonight at 9:35 on ABC1.

Other Comments by Hamish

33. Comment #193743 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 1:41 am

Modernity is less threatened by the intelligent design theorists, who try to prove their case in terms of evidence and observation, than by those who challenge the process of science itself.

I disagree. The agenda of ID is clear, and they are not after evidence and observation, indeed as Behe's attitude has shown, they reject it. I believe they do directly challenge the process of science, with their idea that we can define a point at which science has to stop, and allow in God.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #193747 by AtheistJon on June 16, 2008 at 1:58 am

In fact, the philosophy of science should come a long time before any actual science is taught: you just need to introduce the modes of reasoning such as those introduced in Sagan's "Dragon in the Garage" sketch.

Hi Beeline, I'm not familiar with (or at least I don't remember)the Carl Sagan "Dragon in the Garage" sketch. Could you refresh our memories?

Other Comments by AtheistJon

35. Comment #193750 by Hamish on June 16, 2008 at 2:03 am

But the hypotheses, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that there is evidence of irreducible complexity, are testable hypotheses. They can be falsified.

How can a claim that begins with "I have faith that..." be demonstrated to be false? This is why I consider challenges to empiricism more dangerous than poor but testable hypotheses. I'm not saying that Behe and other proponents of ID aren't also challenging empiricism, and if they are, then that is their far greater sin.

Other Comments by Hamish

36. Comment #193752 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 2:05 am

Shergar said: How long before we are fighting this same fight here in Britain against this insidious affront to reason and true scientific analysis of ideas?

I posted information about the UK situation in another article. Here is what I said:

danielrendall asked: Do we have an organisation equivalent to the NCSE in the US to counter the propaganda of the fundamentalists?

Barry Pearson said: The nearest we have appears to be the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE). It is not in the same league as the NCSE:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/
They link to other initiatives at:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Links
Frankly, UK groups are under-resourced, and probably need lots of help. I wonder how we can help? I have just made a donation to BCSE and applied for membership.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

37. Comment #193754 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 am

Comment #193750 by Hamish

But the hypotheses, that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that there is evidence of irreducible complexity, are testable hypotheses. They can be falsified.

Indeed, which is why they are less of a threat to science.

I'm not saying that Behe and other proponents of ID aren't also challenging empiricism, and if they are, then that is their far greater sin.

They are saying that science has limits based on what humans can conceive of. That is worrying to me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #193759 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 2:32 am

Steve Zara said: I disagree. The agenda of ID is clear, and they are not after evidence and observation, indeed as Behe's attitude has shown, they reject it. I believe they do directly challenge the process of science, with their idea that we can define a point at which science has to stop, and allow in God.

I believe you are making an important point that many people with a scientific background don't grasp.

When I first obtained the "Wedge" document, I assumed it was going to explain that evolution had to be contested because it was scientifically inaccurate. In fact it didn't even address the scientific case. It addressed the need to replace a "materialistic worldview" in society with a religious, mainly Christian, worldview. Frankly, I don't think it matters much to many of those people whether evolution is good science; if it IS good science, that is an inconvenience to be overcome.

When I see and hear these debates, I feel that there are two different debates going on, and that one side may not realise this. One side is debating the quality of the evidence for evolution, (or other areas of science), in the expectation, or at least the hope, that this will cause people to accept it. The other side is debating how to establish a Christian worldview, and how to demolish the roadblocks in the way. But they try to avoid being too explicit about that, except when generating support and fund raising, because it will be used against them.

Many of us here love science, and are willing to be distracted by the science in these arguments. Much of what we say it irrelevant to the real battle.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

39. Comment #193760 by King of NH on June 16, 2008 at 2:42 am

When I first obtained the "Wedge" document, I assumed it was going to explain that evolution had to be contested because it was scientifically inaccurate. In fact it didn't even address the scientific case. It addressed the need to replace a "materialistic worldview" in society with a religious, mainly Christian, worldview.

It is a dazzling display of the religious contempt for science and understanding. The Wedge is an attack on science and clearly demonstrates their intolerant attitude and dogmatic goals. It has probably been linked before, but I think this particular piece of nastiness should be read and re-read before we consider an idea that we can work with IDers to find a middle ground.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Other Comments by King of NH

40. Comment #193766 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #193760 by King of NH

You are right. We really must not give in at all. The controversy that ID wants taught is not about how life evolved, but whether or not science should give way to religion as a method of understanding reality. That is not something appropriate for science lessons.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #193793 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 3:51 am

King said: It is a dazzling display of the religious contempt for science and understanding. The Wedge is an attack on science and clearly demonstrates their intolerant attitude and dogmatic goals. It has probably been linked before, but I think this particular piece of nastiness should be read and re-read before we consider an idea that we can work with IDers to find a middle ground.

Chuckle! The concept of a "middle ground" on this issue is equivalent to seeking a middle ground between "right" and "wrong", or between "enlightened" and "unenlightened".

Steve Zara said: You are right. We really must not give in at all. The controversy that ID wants taught is not about how life evolved, but whether or not science should give way to religion as a method of understanding reality. That is not something appropriate for science lessons.

Yes! But attacking science is surely only a step towards attacking the rest of the enlightenment: freethinking, pluralism, secularism, tolerance. THAT is the real objective.

I've just been reading reviews of: "The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-town America", by Lauri Lebo
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595582088/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

She lives there, and knows the people. The instigators typically didn't even understand the science. Some had political objectives, such as:

The lawyers of the Thomas More Law Center did not go unobserved. Lauri provides descriptions of their part in the affair from fomenting the Dover school board's participation in a "revolution against evolution" through their sometimes lackluster courtroom performance. In particular, Richard Thompson is revealed as a man on a mission to whom all others are secondary considerations, including the people that his law firm agreed to "shield" from legal challenge. Thompson's sole concern, as related in the book, was putting a court record together to take to the Supreme Court.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

42. Comment #193859 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 6:44 am

They are saying that science has limits based on what humans can conceive of. That is worrying to me.

I've probably misunderstood the gist of what you're saying, but that sounds like a truism to me - surely we are limited in what we can eventually understand about the nature of the universe by... well, by our inherent capacity for understanding ("conceiving" if you will). It's just possible that our evolved brains are capable of understanding everything that there is out there, but I sure wouldn't like to bet on it. Surely there must be some things about reality queerer than we are able to suppose?

Did you mean that the ID hacks are saying science should be limited based on what we understand about the universe now, or what we understood two millennia ago, or on what unimaginative people are capable conceiving without putting any effort into it, or something like that?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

43. Comment #193862 by discipline on June 16, 2008 at 6:48 am

The Wedge ... addresses the need to replace a "materialistic worldview"

Going one step farther back: why do IDers and the Discovery Institute care about the threat of "materialism"? The key point is that the ID movement is obviously an evangelical Christian movement, which is obviously inextricably entangled with conservative American politics. (Thus, they are also anti-environmentalism, climate change deniers, anti-abortion, etc). More and more, it's clear that the anti-evolution movement is not about science, but about politics and economics. As usual in the US, it all comes down to power and $$. When the DI says "materialist" what they really mean is "liberal."

It's very similar to medieval Catholicism -- anybody ever read a history of the papacy? Do most Popes really believe or even care what they are saying? No, it's all about retaining economic power by exploiting the habits and ignorance of the masses. I'd say there's a dissertation for somebody who can draw the clear parallels between that history of corruption and debauchery and modern American televangelists.

By the way, Ken Miller is a really great spokesman: so articulate and confident. The power of compartmentalization is really something to behold.

Other Comments by discipline

44. Comment #193865 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #193859 by Cartomancer

Surely there must be some things about reality queerer than we are able to suppose?

Yes, that is it precisely, if you change it to "about natural reality".

Did you mean that the ID hacks are saying science should be limited based on what we understand about the universe now, or what we understood two millennia ago, or on what unimaginative people are capable conceiving without putting any effort into it, or something like that?

Yes. Basically, they are saying that if Behe or Dembski can't figure out what is going on, then it must be God. There is no waiting a decade or two, or even a millenium or two, to see if an explanation turns up.

You might almost think that ID was an "End Times" doctrine. We are the pinnacle of creation, and nothing beyond us will exist than can understand nature more than we do.

Incidentally, researching the claims of ID, I have noticed that there is another "bacterial flagellum". The archaea, a parallel group to the bacteria, have a flagellum of an entirely different construction, and of a different origin, that does the same job. Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #193894 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:44 am

t's very similar to medieval Catholicism -- anybody ever read a history of the papacy? Do most Popes really believe or even care what they are saying? No, it's all about retaining economic power by exploiting the habits and ignorance of the masses.

That's a very simplistic marxist "conspiracy theory" view of history I'm afraid. Generally you don't find educated elites who "know better" trying to oppress and keep the "uneducated masses" ignorant purely for their own selfish gain. Almost always the oppressors are just as wound up in the system as the oppressed, and subscribe to the same notions. The medieval papacy is a case in point. Sure, it was as corrupt and self-serving as any political organisation will be, but most of the people involved in church bureaucracy did genuinely believe most of the doctrinal points they professed to believe. Theologians laboured long and hard with no trace of cynicism or scheming to write their doctrinal works, and the university system supported their endeavours - to the twelfth or thirteenth century mind theology was an important and legitimate science with the greatest of practical benefits for mankind. Didn't stop the hypocrisy of course - which is why the church became obsessed with managing scandals and limiting their impact - but most hypocrites are not cynical manipulators either, rather, they genuinely value the virtues they openly profess, but can't help diverging from their own ideals because such professed virtues are unattainable.

As for the Discovery Institute and American right-wing politics, sadly I have to conclude that an awful lot of them really do believe what they say they believe as well.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

46. Comment #193988 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

Steve Zara said: Incidentally, researching the claims of ID, I have noticed that there is another "bacterial flagellum". The archaea, a parallel group to the bacteria, have a flagellum of an entirely different construction, and of a different origin, that does the same job. Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?

Three! Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotic. (With many sub-types):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

47. Comment #194041 by moderndaythomas on June 16, 2008 at 10:08 am

Steve Zara said; Odd that a designer would have invented the same thing twice, when either one would have done the job?

Reading this Steve, I'm reminded of the kidney. I'll try to explain this so that no one will get confused that isn't familial with this particular organ but I make no promises. I would make a poor teacher.

The nephron of the kidneys is responsible for the filtration of the blood and formation of the urine. The portion of the nephron of interest here is the "loop of nephron"; a tube that narrows and makes a u-turn through a partof the kidney (the renal medulla) that is high in sodium ions (salt).
Active reabsorption of sodium from the medulla into the surrounding capillaries creates osmotic pressure that moves water from the filtrate in the nephron to the blood. This is a healthy process.

Here's the point. As the filtrate moves down the loop into the region of high sodium, water diffuses out of the loop toward the higher gradient of solute in the capillaries. Now the nephron turns to head back up and it's in this part that sodium is actively passed out into the renal medulla.
It's here that a hypertonic environment is created but earlier in the nephron where water diffuses across.
This is backwards; a designer wouldn't draw up a schematic of the nephron with this process in this order.
Unless I'm mistaken (and it happens more than I like to admit) it would make more sense, if I were to design a nephron, to have the sodium transported out into the medulla first with the goal of water diffusion coming later.


This is just one of the interesting and messy ways in which an organism works that doesnt jibe with an intelligent designer.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

48. Comment #194056 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 10:47 am

I enjoyed listening to the talk wit Dr. Miller.
Am I wrong in thinking that 'strengths and weaknesses' of religion will be taught as well? <--(joking). Agenda driven initiatives closed to being challenged often don't apply to themselves the same rules they would have others follow.
In the talk Dr. Miller spoke briefly about the non-literal interpretation of the bible by christian scholars, but why then is 'god' not excluded from literal interpretation?
Following the discussion about limitation, my thought is that limits first have to be observed to know they are limits. Realization of limitation is the first step in overcoming it. To me, religious belief is a roadblock to the genuine pursuit of understanding. All forthcoming answers and solutions to problems are either truncated, assumed without question, credited, stifled, or given their possibility through the 'god' answer to whatever might or might not come along. Surrendering knowledge to the incomprehensible is no solution, because it is no different than surrendering to the non-existent or the rules of the imagined.
I think there may be more than one intersecting path to religious belief, but my speculation about the nature of religion is that it is a placebo for commonplace phobias - death, uncertainty, etc. Phobias can reflect actual threat, but also allow for compartmentalization to tend to the actions needed to sustain daily life. Widespread, the importance it's given is in equal measure to the cure sought out. Its application finding necessity in imagination, used to smooth the powerful and potentially debilitating to survival, emotions such as grief, desperation, and fear of finality. Its implication matching its need. Imagination and reality met by mortality run towards unconditional survival, but religion stops in the dream.
(Pardon some of the wording.)

Other Comments by SPS

49. Comment #194189 by beeline on June 16, 2008 at 2:12 pm

But within the scientific community there is NO controversy! Not one decent scientific paper. Not one falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing.

Exactly - and that's what the course will show.

However, as well as deliberating over 'controversy', the course will also need to help non-scientific people avoid confusion. It's generally only confused people who sense a controversy, because they don't understand what science generally tries to do.

To avoid confusion, the course will touch on the ways that people over the centuries have tried to disprove various scientific theories, talking about the successful attempts (and consequent improvements in those theories, or their abandonment) and the unsuccessful attempts (which theories are still around today).

Hi Beeline, I'm not familiar with (or at least I don't remember)the Carl Sagan "Dragon in the Garage" sketch. Could you refresh our memories?

Googling 'sagan dragon garage' brings it up as the top hit. It's wonderfully simple, and It might be worth quoting in full here. Buy the book, though - it's incandescently brilliant.

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Other Comments by beeline

50. Comment #194237 by AtheistJon on June 16, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Thanks Beeline. Sorry for being lazy about not Googling outright...

That was a great one. Don't believe I had heard it either. Unmistakenly from Carl... he had a great style.

By the way, one question sprang to mind for all you English (and other non-American) folk online on this site. Is it only Scotland who ever made use of a "not proved" verdict? I mean why don't other countries have that? I know both my home country, the USA, and my adopted country, Finland, do not have this option. Or at least, they don't call it "not proved". There is a "hung jury", but that somehow doesn't quite seem the same as saying "not proved". What an excellent idea my Scottish ancestors had!

No doubt, the English will claim the credit ;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon