Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design » Michael Ruse on Ken Miller’s New Book (Or, Truth and Beauty Versus Lies and Ugliness)

Michael Ruse on Ken Miller’s New Book (Or, Truth and Beauty Versus Lies and Ugliness)

Michael Ruse writes:

“Ken Miller’s new book, Only a Theory, Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, is everything we have come to expect from him — informed, witty, and above all deeply serious about matters of concern to us all. He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart, piece by piece, showing it for the sham that it is. In its stead, Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children.”

“He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart…”

I presume he does this in the same manner that he unspun the bacterial flagellum, with unsupported speculation that doesn’t withstand even the most simplistic mathematical, logical, or analytical scrutiny.

“…a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children.”

Ah yes, the truth and beauty of “evolutionary thinking” that explains how a hippo turned into a whale through random reproductive errors and natural selection, and the truth and beauty that gave us evolutionary psychobabble, no free will, no gods worth having, no ultimate meaning, and no ultimate foundation for ethics. This kind of truth and beauty must surely be defended at all cost, and passed on to the next generation, so they can experience truth and beauty as a consequence of evolutionary thinking.

If this is truth and beauty, please give me lies and ugliness.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

13 Responses to Michael Ruse on Ken Miller’s New Book (Or, Truth and Beauty Versus Lies and Ugliness)

  1. —-Ruse puts both his and Miller’s anti-intellectualism on display with the phrase “Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking”….

    Notice he didn’t say the beauty of evolutionary theory or the truth of evolution. People like Ruse and Miller do not believe much in objective truth or objective beauty, both of which are kissing cousins of design. On the other hand, they do believe in a beautiful or truthful way of thinking. What matters to them is is not truth but conformity to convention. These people give themselves away in countless ways. They don’t believe that anything of value can be found at the end of the search process, so they bet all their chips on the process itself.

  2. Truth and beauty not just of evolution, but ‘evolutionary thinking’? Wonderful science for our children?

    Sounds kind of culty. And I’m someone who believes in evolution. Not sure about ‘evolutionary thinking’, though.

  3. You may like this video Gil:

    Piano Landscape Music With “There Is More” Poem

    http://www.godtube.com/view_vi.....fbade250fc

  4. Truth and beauty are the very things that Darwinism can’t begin to explain.

    Why is nature overwhelmingly beautiful? Plato and Aristotle had a reasonable answer, as does the Bible. What is Neo-Darwinism’s explanation?

    We know that intelligent beings, freely bringing all of their creative resources into play, cannot create anything even remotely as beautiful as nature. Is it reasonable to claim, then, that nature can produce beauty by irrational means?

    The beauty of nature is good—highly desirable. But how does nature create something good without any capacity to judge what is good? What good reason do we have to suppose that nature, of its own accord, is capable of producing anything but ugliness?

    Darwin’s explanation amounts to a pathetic fallacy: supposedly bees make flora beautiful through a natural attraction to the most beautiful flowers. This flight of fancy makes bees into judges of what is beautiful and good. No scientific evidence exists for a discretionary capacity in unthinking creatures.

    Looks like we’ll have to add another power to the multiverses. Not only must they account for the highly improbable fact of life, and for fine tuning, but they must also account for the great beauty of nature.

    Goldilocks didn’t know what she was getting into.

  5. Gil,
    Got a citation for the Ruse quote?
    Thnx,
    -sb

  6. Ruse writes:
    “…Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children.”

    (With apologies for aping Dr. Dembski’s recent post):
    Miller writes:
    “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless – a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

    Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161

    I suspect most parents don’t have this in mind when sending their children to schools to become educated, or to help build self esteem in order to foster good citizenship in their society.
    One might ask, where is the truth and beauty in Miller’s text? Is it a) verifiably true? and b.) does it fall into something that might be defined, at least aesthetically, beautiful?

  7. Got a citation for the Ruse quote?

    http://www.amazon.com/Only-The.....038;sr=1-1

  8. slightly off topic:

    Why does evil exist?
    Who can say for sure,,,But,,

    With the recent floods in the Midwest this song takes a whole different level of meaning for me.

    Washed by the Water-Needtobreathe-Flood Tribute

    http://www.godtube.com/view_vi.....9fad293ee7

  9. 9
    Granville Sewell

    It seems to me that both the “philosophical materialists” and the “theistic evolutionists” start with presuppositions about what philosophies are “true and beautiful”, before looking at the evidence. The former has decided that the design hypothesis can never be invoked, the latter that it can only be invoked at the very beginning of the universe, no matter what the evidence says. It seems that we IDiots are the only ones who have decided to look first at the evidence before making up our minds.

  10. 10

    Some of the most fascinating things in biology are the hardest to explain in terms of evolution, e.g., “buzz” pollination, the sexual attraction of wasps to orchids, and parasitisms where there are astonishing changes in the behavior of the hosts and/or “reverse engineering” (science writer Carl Zimmer’s term) of the host by the parasite.

  11. 11

    Julian Beever Street Artist video:

    !!! The Amazing Art of Julian Beever !!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqvEFspmp8

    Similar to the overall fossil record?

  12. 12

    Gil, there is so much truth and beauty in this song that it brought tears to my eyes the first time I heard it.

    Kari Jobe – Revelation Song

    http://www.godtube.com/view_vi.....59170b2333

  13. 13

    Gil, An artist tells the Gospel using his art.

    http://www.godtube.com/view_vi.....656d97ea2e

Leave a Reply