Miller Redefining Design
|January 22, 2009||Posted by Patrick under Darwinism, Eyes Rolling, theistic evolution|
Originally written by uoflcard. I’d rather not distract from the main point of the other thread: HGT. So I created a separate thread for this topic, duplicating this info.
It is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. A biologist says that the ID movement garners attention because it is appealing to believe there is design in nature. “To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design'”, he says. What the article and the biologist don’t explicitly say is basically they completely misuse the word “design”. Listen to his personal definition of design:
“Miller will argue that 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.”
What does regularity or natural law have to do with information-rich design?? Could people possibly buy this?
Look at any dictionary definition of “design” and it is clear they a philosophical naturalist wants nothing to do with the word “design” in nature:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise , contrive
a: to conceive and plan out in the mind
b: to have as a purpose : intend
c: to devise for a specific function or end
deliberate purposive planning (more by accident than design)
…Sooo we came about by a long, long LONG series of accidents that somehow produced their antonym, designs (and wildly complex ones, at that). Makes sense, if you close your eyes and click your heels three times.
The article closes with this:
“There is, indeed, a design to life — an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”
Basically, let’s just forget trying to scientifically prove that all of the design in nature came about naturally, including some things that are more complex than anything a human has ever created, and let’s just use their language even though it directly contrasts our hypothesis…err I mean 100% proven theory. That way, we WIN! “But sir, I thought the point of science was to discover truths.” Well whatever we say IS the truth. We are the scientists, gatekeepers to all true knowledge on this Earth.
We might need to keep our eyes on new editions of dictionaries to make sure the materialist agenda doesn’t infiltrate the definition of “design”. They have already taken over wikipedia, youtube and google searches (google “design in nature” and the first thing that comes up is this ridiculous article I posted here)