It’s been a while coming but I was always intending on watching Ken Miller’s 2 hour presentation called The Collapse of Intelligent Design in which he systematically refutes all of the arguments and shows that ID is creationism in disguise with the ultimate end of establishing theocracy. I was pleasantly surprised. I like Miller, he’s witty, articulate and not at all brash unlike many of ID’s opponents. This may be because he’s somewhere in the middle of the argument being a Roman Catholic yet staunch supporter of evolutionary theory. Miller is Professor of Biology at Brown University and he knows his beef.
The focus of his presentation is more geared to showing the religious nature of ID and creationism subscribing to the notion that the ultimate battle is one of science versus religion. The fear of theocracy is what appears to this writer to drive the debate, the fear that religion will hold back the advance of science. Obviously as an advocate of ID I respectfully disagree and see the main argument as being one of letting us go where the evidence leads. I mused on the scientific method in a previous post and how the two sides see the use of it very differently without the method itself changing and I think this lecture bares out some of that misunderstanding.
Anyway, to get to the point. Miller makes a case for evolution and there are a few points I would like to pick up in his lecture. Please note, I’m not refuting evolution, I’m not a scientist and I don’t know the inner workings, I’m a sideline observer who is interested in the science who asks questions of both sides. So, here are a few points about the lecture that I found interesting.
1) Miller makes a case for evolution based on transitional fossils
He claims in the lecture that he once went to a meeting of paleontologists where the transitional fossils were so numerous that they fought fiercely over which fitted where. In a throw away comment he said that there was almost fist fights. I’m sure we would usually pass over a comment such as this but I have to ask about the image which is presented to the public regarding the scientific method. Many anti creationist activists are adamant that science is an emotionless affair with each adherent going where the evidence leads. It may seem like a pedantic point but doesn’t this show that that’s not necessarily always the case? My second question would be what transitional forms is he referring to? If there are so many why do the newspapers make such a big deal when scientists claim to have found The Missing Link? If they’re so common and numerous shouldn’t we all know about them?
2) Miller makes a case for common descent based on Chromosome 2 fusion.
This was one of the arguments I was struggling to comprehend but it suddenly clicked when I saw Miller use it. Without going into too much detail, apes exhibit 48 chromosome pairs while humans exhibit 46, a major problem for common descent. Evolution predicts that there will be a fusion of 2 human Chromosomes showing that at some point in history humans and apes have shared the same amount of chromosomes thus share a common ancestor. This is hard evidence but only hard evidence that the chromosomes did fuse and that at some point apes and humans shared the same number of chromosomes, it is not evidence of a common ancestor unless you assume evolution to be true. Basically, evolution doesn’t predict chromosome fusion but accommodates it.
The evidence that humans and apes once shared the same amount of chromosomes can also fit neatly into a creation model if we say
Apes and humans were created in a separate act of creation using the same amount of chromosomes. At some point in history, human Chromosome 2 fused together.
It then takes a leap to say that this is evidence of common ancestry unless you assume common ancestry to be true in the first place.
Thanks to Luke Plant’s response in helping me make sense of this.
3) Miller misunderstands irreducible complexity
I have looked over this a number of times and mentioned it in a previous post. Miller claims that Irreducible Complexity states that the parts of a biochemical machine would be useless unless they were part of the machine. As I see it, Behe says nothing of the sort. His focus is on the machine and it’s function as oppose to the function of the individual parts. His claim that removal of one part will cause the machine to break down thus showing that evolution does not have an explanation for how a machine could be built in small, successive stages.
In conclusion there are a number of points to pick Miller up on in this lecture and the problem mainly lies in his misrepresentation of ID. He claims that ID is not science yet in the next turn of the heel he is claiming to have falsified it. The concern is that Miller et al are the scientists who shape the public understanding of ID in TV interviews and documetaries. Unfortunately, they are responsible for characterising the ID arguments but if they don’t do it properly how will the public know and examine it for themselves? For some responses from ID proponents, check the links below.
TRF
A response from Uncommon Descent on Miller’s mis-characterisation of IC.
Do Engines Run on Lugnuts? Casey Luskin examines Miller’s argument against IC.
To number 1, about transiontional fossils. The problem with transiontail fossiles, is that all fossils are transions and all living things are transional forms. However, fossils in of themselves are rather rare, and don’t form under certain condistions. This is why we know a lot about various animals that lived near water but almost nothing about those that lived in forests, with a few expections of volcanos covering an entire forest in ash and perserving everything in it.
Actually, we have so many fossiles of so many animals, that places that house them are over flowing with them, to the point that many of them are actually put on auction and sold. Want a Triceritops in your living room? You can buy it, for the right price. The real thing, not a repleca. There are also people out there who collect trioblites. It’s kinda like a card-trading game with them, so I understand. Who can collect all of them. And, we have so many of them, they can actually observe the trasions of speices. Same thing with clams, fish, and other various small, aquatic life.
The problem with the media is that they only want to report on certain topics. The vast majority of fossiles that are found are of tiny, numbrious creatures. Or they are broken into a million pieces and not worth digging up. Or simply end up in a dware in a musume to go unnoticed for what it is for years. Or, we grind them up and use them for our purposes.
The media prefers to rerport on the large and the unusal. That’s why we always see, new massive dinosure discoverd, but never anything about the new speices of minnow found. You have to get beyond normal day to day media to find out about this stuff. It’s out there, but you have to know where to look. And, new ones are being dug out of the ground daily.
These fossils do exist and by the trillions (I have a very small collection of fossils and that’s just from walking around and picking them up off the ground through my life – and if I have this, think of how many others do too). It’s only been very recently with the advcment of DNA that we have started to really find some of the major ones. The ‘missing links’, as they liked to be called. How? Well, we can trace back to the time period that two speices should have diverged. And, with careful DNA study, we can find where too. That’s how we found the various whale annsetors, and the trasitional forms between fish and amphibain. That’s been a huge problem with finding these things, was knowing where and when to look.
Point number 2. Miller never says that this proves evolution, yes, I suppose it accommodates it, but that’s the purpose of a theory. It makes predictions and then when we find the truth, it should fit into the model. In fact, the reverse is true. Had the fused chromosomes not been found, it would have proved evidence that we did not descend from apes. It would not, however, disprove evolution. Evolution isn’t some one tiny theory. It’s huge, encompasses many theories, laws, and bodies of knowledge. So, the fact that we find that the chromosomes are fused doesn’t prove anything. It only provides evidence that we might be related to apes (and there’s other evidence that links us with having a common ancestor with chimps, beyond the point, though). So yes, the whole creation version you gave also fits into that also, but I think you kinda missed the forest for the trees there. I mean, there’s evidence that the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn’t make it true. It’s not until you get together a lot of evidence and then bring it together with a theory that you can say anything about it.
Point 3. Yeah, he might have gotten the exact wording wrong, but he got it in spirit. And yes, he did test it because they wouldn’t do it themselves. And it really wasn’t a bad idea either, and it’s easy to do. They said, this can’t be broken down and still work, yet it was shown to be other wise. The reason ID is not science is because it still claims the irreducible complexity of things, when it has shown to be false (in fact, what they want is for people to go around and show that all things they say are irreducibly complex and show exactly how they evolved – and then promptly ignore all findings). It doesn’t do it’s own testing (which it should be if it’s making this claim), does not make predictions, and does not actually go forward with anything considered research. It is not science because it wishes to hold the title of ‘theory’ without actually doing any of the work.
I can say that there is a pink unicorn in my closet and just because you can show me it’s not there, doesn’t make what I say a science. ID seeks to skip everything it takes for something to become known as science, as theory, as fact.. and they do it by calling it that, without anything to really back it up. That’s the point I think that needs to be made in all this and what is trying to be made. They are lying, but by repeating the lie enough times people are coming to accept them as ‘science’, and that’s what needs to be stopped. What has to be stopped, before what the word science actually means is obscured, that anything can be claimed as truth to it.
Hi Kimberley,
Thanks for your post, I did find it interesting. If I could counter only a few points since my time on these discussions must be limited.
You said
Of which approximately 95% are aquatic. I’m asking for a fossil which doesn’t fit into presuppositional framework of interpretation. Otherwise we’re only looking at something with a subjective view which can be interpreted several different ways.
OK regardless of anything you say after this do you see the presuppositional bias that is being applied to the evidence? That’s the issue.
He uses it as a main pillar of evidence of common descent when it’s one thing on from that. It is actually a problem which needs to be solved. It doesn’t predict it, it accommodates it and for Miller to use it as proof of common descent in the context of the lecture he is giving is disingenuous.
In other words, it’s a philosophy of biology rather than a theory.
And that’s the point I’m making. While the evolutionary model can explain Chromosome 2 fusion, so can the creationist model. You also say
but I think you kinda missed the forest for the trees there.
when I would say that it’s you that has missed the point. Creationism or ID are not theories, they’re a philosophy of science which fits ideas into it’s models just like evolution does. Bottom line, you can’t test for common descent, you can only infer it based on what you see in the present. That’s not testing, it’s backwards extrapolation. There’s nothing wrong with it but it’s not scientific.
You don’t think there is any evidence for an Intelligent Designer? I wonder why so many people dismiss the fact that much of nature appears designed is evidence of a designer. There’s only one thing that’s stopping it from being scientific and it’s not evidence, it’s methodologically naturalistic assumptions.
He got nothing of the sort, he outright misrepresents it. He says that the parts should be useless elsewhere which is not what IC is. IC predicts that the function of the system will be useless with it’s parts removed. Can you see the difference? IC does not deny co-option.
Can you point to an empirical study which has sought to deconstruct the bacterial flagellum, reintroduce the organism back into it’s natural environment and observe whether the system is still functional? No? Neither can I. Creating a power point presentation in which 40 of the parts of the BF are taken away leaving only the T3SS intact is not laboratory testing, it’s story telling. When it can be shown through empirical testing that the system can be used in it’s current environment without some of it’s parts, I’ll stop pushing irreducible complexity.
I also often wonder how Miller and co can keep a straight face when they say that ID is not science because it can’t be falsified and in the very next breath claim to have falsified it.
I just don’t get it when people say this. It makes the prediction that things will be designed for their environment and that they are irreducibly complex. That’s the whole basis of ID.
That’s a red herring. It’s because it’s not accepted as science that it can’t go forward and be peer reviewed not because of evidence but because of the undergirding philosophy of the scientific community.
I’m not sure what point you’re making here since ID does not identify the creator and ask anyone to disprove it. If you want to believe there’s a pink unicorn in your wardrobe or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world or that Zeus is the bearer of lighting then please go ahead but I’ll edge my bets on what I perceive to be the most historically viable and attested testimony of the person and work of Jesus as a true representation of reality.
I could take offence at this comment given that I am a proponent of ID. Effectively you are calling me a liar. I am not a liar. I have a different view of what science should be. I may be in the minority but my view is still valid. Do you really want to silence those of dissenting opinion or is there room for a free and frank exchange of ideas? Personally, I believe there are two main obstacles to accepting ID as science. The first is materialistic philosophy and the second is fear of theocracy based on an uncritical view of the history of religion. I believe the fear drives it most but is the least reported.
Thanks for your comments Kimberley.
TRF
Fabulous rebuttal. 10 out of 10 for originality.
“Apes and humans were created in a separate act of creation using the same amount of chromosomes. At some point in history, human Chromosome 2 fused together.”
You believe in magical creation. That’s an extremely childish idea. Why are you so afraid of reality?