IDEA co-founder disembowels Ken Miller’s strawman
|April 21, 2006||Posted by scordova under Intelligent Design, Courts|
If Miller ever makes an appearance in a public event to criticize ID, during the Q&A session, IDers should call him into account for why he misrepresented Michael Behe’s ideas under oath in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Casey Luskin, IDEA co-founder and attorney at the Discovery Institute, exposed the misrepresentations which Miller used in the trial. These misrepresentations were used by Judge Jones to unjustly criticize Michael Behe and Scott Minnich’s testimony.
Here is the link: Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts?
For example, in a debate in the Fall of 2005 at the American Enterprise Institute (organized by former IDEA member Joe Manzari), Miller equivocated the term “functional”. Miller quoted Behe:
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Miller then equivocated the word “functional” in that debate. Miller said the type-III secretory system (TTSS for short, and has 1/4 of the proteins of the flagellum) is functional, therefore it demonstrates functional precursors are conceptually possible, therefore Behe is wrong.
But Behe was referring to the function of the flagellum, not the function of the TTSS. Miller used The Fallacy of Equivocation.
Paul Nelson in that debate pointed out Miller misrepresented Behe, but Nelson was really too polite. He did not take Miller to task for his outright misrepresentations, strawman arguments, and falsehoods. Nelson was far too polite and softly said, “That’s not what Behe meant,” and let it go at that.
Too bad DaveScot and I weren’t there as we would not have been so courteous. But now that Miller has committed this misrpresentation under oath, IDers should never let him off the hook for doing so. Never! “Ken, why do you knowingly repeat these equivocations and misrepresentations of Behe’s ideas. Behe has repeatedly pointed out you are mischaracterizing his postion. So why do you persist doing so, and why did you do so under oath?”
Here is material to help one deal with the Ken Miller strawman arguments. Casey Luskin shows how to disembowel such strawmen.
A pictorial summary of Luskin’s paper.
this is Behe’s arch:
this is Miller’s strawman version of Behe’s arch:
this is what happens to Miller’s straman version of Behe’s arch when the strawman version is subject to critical scrutiny: