Home » Origin Of Life » Another reason to forget Darwinism – especially if you are a Catholic

Another reason to forget Darwinism – especially if you are a Catholic

Friend Casey Luskin writes,

“There He Goes Again: Ken Miller misrepresents Behe’s Arguments on the Immune System.”

Well, of course he would, wouldn’t he? I’ve read Behe’s Edge of Evolution and Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and – to be charitable to Miller – can find no way of even ranking them in the same category.

Look, let’s get this part straight:

Behe fronts real science, but Miller huffs in favour of “evolution.” The former was NOT invited to the Vatican for the big Pontifical Academy of Sciences meet – even though he, as a Catholic Christian, is one of the few people who has anything worthwhile to say about the topic (I am assuming that sensible persons will discount

“All together now! “All together now! There is NO conflict between our religion and materialist atheism as long as we …

Which just shows how corrupt the Pontifical Academy is, and how likely to listen to shallow journalism and academic papers

[Hey!! We just PROVED Darwin right! Whoo  Hoo!!  We found a pond snail somewhere that in 18 000 000 generations ... ]

Look, I don’t want to – in Miller’s phrase – find Darwin’s God.

I want to lose him. Okay, I admit I lost him a long time ago.

But he is like a bad husband. I am totally sure I don’t want him back.

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

7 Responses to Another reason to forget Darwinism – especially if you are a Catholic

  1. Ken Miller is a real piece of work. Despite having been corrected repeatedly, he continues to insist upon misrepresenting Behe’s claims, and then attempting to destroy the misrepresentations (e.g., that the components of an irreducibly-complex system can’t have or couldn’t have had other functions, which Behe never suggested).

    The bottom line is that Miller’s entire career (and perhaps even raison d’être) is so thoroughly invested in Darwinian orthodoxy that he must defend it by any means available, even resorting to misrepresenting critics and invoking self-contradictory pseudo-logic, like trying to convince people that God “created” humankind in His image through an unpurposed, undirected, stochastic process.

  2. Denyse wrote: “Behe fronts real science…

    Riiight – that’s why the entire faculty (minus one) of the Department of Biological Sciences put up a website about how well Behe “fronts” science – http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

    The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

  3. People take Miller way too seriously. Look at the video of him where he is claiming to refute Behe’s mouse trap by using the spring as a tie holder. Well it is a ridiculous analogy because no one I know of would use a tie holder like that- and more over a tie holder is an designed invention used by intelligent agents. S the tie holder analogy does not explain how a mouse trap could self assemble without ID.

    I agree that there is always some imaginary evolutionary pathway from system to any other system regardless of how IC it may seem. But this does not mean that IC is not a serious threat to DE. IC basically says How on earth could you get to a flagellar when it needs all of it’s parts to function?

    So the challenge is one side one of specificity- that is pointing out how specifically integrated the system is- and the other side is that specified integrated systems (IC) are even more improbable via DE pathways than regular SC systems.

    Bottom line is that Miller gets the left wing media’s support because he is against ID and so are they. If Miler came out in favor of ID he would no longer be held up as “the reputable scientist” or whatever, like at the Dover trial. Then the media and the left would just go get PZ Meyers or somebody and hold them up as the fallacy by authority and who knows- maybe canonize them?

  4. Look, I don’t want to – in Miller’s phrase – find Darwin’s God.

    I don’t either, because Darwin’s god is nonsensical. It is a god that (not who) creates without creating, designs without designing, purposes with no purpose, determines with randomness, plans with no plan, reveals without revealing, and contradicts itself at every turn.

    Darwin’s god is a god that makes one-ended sticks.

  5. Frost (2),

    “But this does not mean that IC is not a serious threat to DE. IC basically says How on earth could you get to a flagellar when it needs all of it’s parts to function?”

    Or how you get to a mousetrap when it needs all of its parts to function. The problem is that nature has done the equivalent to the mousetrap – the Venus flytrap, which molecular evidence suggests evolves from other carniverous plants.

    But if IDists think a trap such as this couldn’t evolve, for the same reasons as the behe moustrap, then you must believe the Venus fly-trap is the product of ID. Am I correct?

  6. 6

    The Catholic Church says that all humans, not just Adam and Eve, require an act of supernatural creation on the part of God. That is de fide.

  7. Vladimir,

    Does that mean that you and I were conceived by a supernatural act of God?

    Wow.

    A citation, please?

Leave a Reply