Ken Miller

[sgreen71778]

test

[Offthehookdude]

@sgreen71778 Thats a good point you bring up. I think that test is something that most creationists don't bring to the table when it comes to evolution vs. ceationism. It does have an scientific explanation though. Evolution never predicts that test should come into play in evolution. This is a common mistake usually caused by the amount of test in scientific documents. Good try though.

[tomasino747]

for some reason it just struck me that in this video Ken looks and sounds a lot like Jeff Bridges...

[Baddboy187]

@tomasino747 

Mind if i do a j?

[EasingDifficulties]

Shaving your head daily denies to you the protection

that hair provides from trauma & sunburn.

[Martano666]

You guys know what is interesting? Ken Miller DOES believe in a 'designer'. But, he believes in evolution as well. The only one stuck on 'creationism' are those damn bible thumpers that can't let go of their 'eternal life' . FACE IT FOLKS!!! The Bible is FALSE!!!! Maybe we ALL get eternal life, maybe none of us do. But, the bible ....satan....hell......miracle­s......bullshit!

[Martano666]

Why do creationists insists on avoiding the test of the scientific process?? Why won't they just simply show us that their theories DO infact hold up under scientific scrutiny??? Is it because.....it doesn't??? hmmmmm.

[procommenter]

Michael Jackson was a magical turd.

Soon he'll be entertaining the grubs & maggots.

[EasingDifficulties]

Cancer is the biggest lie of the Western World. Cancer the crab is a disease of want. Research Amygdalin, vitamin B17, Laetrile & G. Edward Griffin's book & film: "World Without Cancer."

[procommenter]

2 + 2 = 4 does not hold true in

hyperspace at the speed of light.

[pantone204]

"In the sciences generally, theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon."

Sorry, but theories are NOT less than facts. Get a clue, go back to school, and stop blindly railing against subjects that you have no knowledge of.

[pantone204]

I don't think any of you people even know what "theory" means. It doesn't mean that it is "less than" a fact. Do you debate atomic "theory"? How about the "theory" of gravitation? Before you make yourself look stupid, maybe take the time to learn some basic definitions that you should have picked up on before leaving high school.

Oh, and procommenter, PLEASE show me some evidence of atheist animal worship. Or is that some sick prurient fantasy you have locked away?

[bozie09]

If we are but animal who evolve then the ten commandments are not good and there is no right or wrong. Lets destroy ourselves then. Let us abort millions of babies. lets as darwin suggested believe some rises are more evolve than others. This dumb *THEORY* calls GOD THE CREATOR A LAIR.

[gregrutz]

Keep up the fight Ken, good work.

[procommenter]

"Atheists" are animal-worshiping collectivists. They relegate personhood to the State. Eagles & kangaroo rats inspire awe amongst god-deniers. Scholarly pursuits & independent studies are frowned upon as "atheists" sacrifice the concept of individualism on behalf of the group-dynamic. "Atheism" = totalitarianism. Civilizations are not built by hedonists.

[lovetoeatallthefood]

You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?

[bdobbsthepipe]

@procommenter

"Eagles & kangaroo rats inspire awe amongst god-deniers."

I'm sorry, moron! What are you trying to say? Do you hate eagles because you have "god"?

[procommenter]

It's terrible that this "junk science" (Darwinian THEORY) has taken such a gluttonous slice of the tax pie, much to the neglect of research that could alleviate misery for the many victims of palsy, lupus, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury, paralysis & so forth.

[procommenter]

Presumptions are all well & good and can be equated w/dreams. One may make assumptions about many things: the toxicity of sodium chloride & how frequent bathing damages the skin. Collegiate tutorials designed to convince our beltless, tattooed & pierced youth that free markets are evil, eugenics is righteous, & that babies are disposable now pass as educational. It's no wonder then that so many people lack purpose & a moral compass.

[procommenter]

Adolf Hitler's regime killed individuals, as did Stalin's regime, as did Harry Truman's regime. The religion of a murdered person is immaterial. You are a self-sovereign entity born with inalienable rights. You are not a worker-bee serving the queen. A murder victim suffers a personal trauma, not a collective one.

[lovetoeatallthefood]

Ah yes, the tired old creationist tactic of trying to blame the theory of evolution for the actions Hitler and/or Stalin. Not only does that display a profound degree of ignorance, but it makes you look like melodramatic children.

If that's the best argument you have, you might as well just give up and admit defeat.

[procommenter]

Scientists crucify & vilify those, amongst their brethren, who defy orthodoxy. Why is it that scientists have a difficult time with simplified concepts? [science 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] and [scientist 1 : one learned in science and esp. natural science : a scientific investigator {Fr. pps. 2,032-3 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" 1967}] By definition: doctors are scientists.

[procommenter]

Radiation sickness is the hallmark of approved cancer "therapy": red, irritated skin; nausea; hair-loss; brain damage. The havoc wrought by radio waves adds to a patient's misery.

[LovingKimiKatkar]

All Nazi-styled eugenicists possess expertise as to which people are worthy candidates for parenthood. In "zoologist" Jane Goodall's eyes the decision as to whether you are worthy to have children is hers.

[procommenter]

The philosophical "science" of evolutionary THEORY is tax-grant funded. We, who pay taxes, have a financial stake in this religion.

[Munro1Man]

On what grounds. What evidence do you not accept? Honest question, no sarcasm.

[procommenter]

Thousands of ancestral/transitional whole-specimen human relics must be produced--no more chicken wire & plaster of Paris mock-ups & color-book depictions of these mythical simian/proto-humanoid hybrids. There aren't enough museums to house all the complete fossilized dinosaurs yet all we get from Darwin's boot-licks, concerning the phases of Man, are hoaxes a la Piltdown, Java, Nebraska & Orce.

[Munro1Man]

Thats exactly it. The same old argument. Unless we can find thousands of transitional forms within fossils you wont believe it. The fact we have any is lucky when you consider how hard it is to get one. I suppose all the skulls we have just are not enough. Even if we had none you could only conclude the THEORY didnt apply to us if you think we are some how separate or different from the other animals, which we are not. God of the gaps syndrome.

[Munro1Man]

Plus why do you insist on typing theory in caps like it somehow demeans or lowers it as a scientific explanation??

You can type gravitational THEORY all you like and I will still think its true.

[procommenter]

Religion is religion; whether it comes from a bearded Darwin or a bearded Jesus. Free yourself. Step into the light.

[firthio2]

If you're going to say that, could you please define religion?

[procommenter]

p. 171 Ch. VI. Difficulties on Theory.

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" -- From Charles Darwin's: "On the Origin of Species"

[Munro1Man]

We do. We are all transitional forms. No one knows what all animals will one day become. The ostrich has already lost its wings almost totally and the mud skipper is well on its way to becoming a fully fledged land animal.

Shame is we will prob have killed them all off (or ourselves)before we get the chance to see.

[procommenter]

Evolutionary THEORY is a philosophical supposition. It has a congregation. It demands obedience, but by definition, it's not science.

[Munro1Man]

Wrong. Try reading about what a Theory is.

Gravitational THEORY

Atomic THEORY

Not science ?

[procommenter]

Theory is a synonym of CONJECTURE.

[Munro1Man]

Based on the best way to explain all the known facts. As a posed to an apologist who simply tries to apologize for why the facts do not fit in with his belief system.

[procommenter]

Evolutionists extrapolate wildly.

Al Gore's fantastical film bears this out.

[Munro1Man]

As opposed to creationist rational thinking haha

Al Gore may be wrong but the data shows otherwise. Even if he is he will still be doing more for the world we live in to preserve it for future generations than the God made it mindset.

[procommenter]

What does evolutionary THEORY have to do with religion, unless it hopes to be one? Darwin's supposition of perpetual change with regards to Earth's flora & fauna, through billions (if not trillions) of beneficial mutations over countless eons, must stand on its merits. Whether Granny says the rosary ten times a day has nothing to do with the a philosophy that places caudated Man in trees.

[Munro1Man]

I said creationist or ID's as they call themselves now. The prob is there is almost no objection to the theory outside of religious circles. Fact.

[procommenter]

I'm not religious and I strenuously object to the philosophical "science" of evolutionary THEORY.

[Looking4Coffee]

procommenter

Are you using "THEORY" as a bad thing? Are the following also bad?

Atomic theory?

Cell theory?

Germ theory?

Gravitational theory?

Plate tectonics theory?

Special theory of relativity?

You really think theory is a bad thing? Theory is the the most useful body of knowledge we have to work with in science. They can be proven wrong, they have in the past, they are not infallible but rather highly tested, useful constructs of knowledge that help us explain and predict our world.

[procommenter]

THEORIES in & of themselves are amoral. Theories precede proof. If a theory doesn't pan out over a reasonable period of time then it must be abandoned-- not worshiped, funded & defended at all costs.

[Looking4Coffee]

Well, you seem to be making bad claims.

1) Proof is a mathmatical claim, not a scientific one. Evidence is found that supports theories and theories can predict what kind of evidence we will find, but proofs are left to mathmatics.

2) You have yet to provide any scientific sources disproving evolution. If you could link to such a source I would appreciate it.

3) You are equating science and religion. Scientist do not worship anything, that is left to religion.

[TheReboundingWorld]

What purpose does this theory serve and what need does it answer?

[bdobbsthepipe]

@procommenter

Did you read the next fucking paragraph?

[yourboycal]

still confusing evolution for adaptation tsk tsk

[procommenter]

Scientists crucify & vilify those, amongst their brethren, who defy orthodoxy. Why is it that scientists have a difficult time with simplified concepts? [science 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] and [scientist 1 : one learned in science and esp.

natural science : a scientific investigator {Fr. pps. 2,032-3 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" 1967}]

[Golkarian]

Valelacerte, have you read his book, Finding Darwin's God, if you haven't it might clear some things up. If so, I was convinced either, but I think it at least shows that reality is neutral (for the most part) on the idea of an omnipotent creator.

[Valelacerte]

No, I haven't read his book, Golkarian; I generally find books by the religious to be profoundly biased and not prepared to examine how or why they first came to believe.

Is reality neutral on the idea of an omnipotent creator? You mean that there's an equal probability that God does or doesn't exist? I see plenty of evidence for the latter (that the Universe developed through natural processes), but really only God-of-the-gaps arguments to support the former.

[Golkarian]

I was coming from a standpoint of not seeing any legitimate evidence in either direction, but if you see evidence that God doesn't exist I suppose my statement wouldn't be valuable to you (but I don't see how the universe developing naturally necessarily excludes the existance of God). I reccomend the book still though, you'll at least enjoy the three chapters on the science (better than Dawkins in my opinion).

[Valelacerte]

I have a problem with saying anything is evidence for God NOT existing because it presupposes that the existence of God is rational, the default, common sense, or even something that has been proven, to the extent that I'm often asked to prove the non-existence of something that is almost certainly a man-made concept. If this "something else" cannot be defined or measured in any way, I find it hard to understand why people posit it as real.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the recommendation.

[Valelacerte]

How does someone like Ken Miller simultaneously have a detailed understanding of how life developed naturally without divine intervention, and yet still believe in an omnipotent creator? It's very odd to me.

[pyropakman]

I agree with Golkarian. I read the book during my freshman year of college at Lehigh, where we have the foremost advocate of Intelligent Design. On Darwin's bicentennial, I met Dr. Miller in Philadelphia, where he signed my copy of his books.

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Well, why it may be possible that evolution is some god's plan, it seems more reasonable to believe that there is no god and that evolution is simple the best explanation of life. The theory of Evolution stands only, without the need for a creator. We most probably came about through slow incremental changes over long periods of time without the "help" of some god or supernatural force. A god probably does not exist. Have you told a child who asks you believe there is no god lately!

[teneo315]

We could think that way, but I see that view as (no offense) shallow and unsophisticated; rather like the literalism of Fundamentalists. I believe in explanatory pluralism; I don't like to just stop with one explanation. Evolution explains life, yes. But only on one level. I believe that there is a complex hierarchy of explanations that compliment each other.

[ourben]

Unsophisticated? Shit, you believers really think a lot of yourselves don't you.

[teneo315]

It's well reciprocated.

[ourben]

You realise even with your complex hierarchy of fluff, excuses and self groomed philosophotripe - it still shines brilliantly how bleak your understand of the world is.

I suspect your tiered elucidation of reality is a delightful patchwork quilt of stupid.

Evolution explains how things develops, abiogenesis is your ignition.

It isn't complex, it isn't special and it certainly isn't spiritual.

[teneo315]

You are admirably articulate, but that skill is being sadly wasted on hollow rhetoric.

Say something original and impress me.

[ourben]

Two reasons I have nothing to say. Firstly, I'm really fucking ill today. Second, I don't think there is anything original to say - you strike me as the sort who ignores most everything anyone else has said already.

I'll pay you a little more attention if you actually ASK something. Before now, all you've done is dribble.

[MikeyFlorida]

johnhasseriousq you are as ignorant about evolution theory as most creationists.

evolution theory is about the development of life, not how it began. it has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and does not touch on the possibility of a creator, even given what it does explain.

a God would explain the "whys" of the universe-like why exactly does gravity, math, life anything even exist? we don't know where any of those came from per se.

you embarrass yourself with your ignorance.

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Are you primarily referring to my sentence: "We MOST PROBABLY came about through slow incremental changes...without the 'help' of some god..."? Evolution is the best explanation of how life changes over time. Abiogenesis or 'spontaneous generation' is one of severely hypotheses about the 'start' of life. Can abiogenesis really be separated from The Theory of Evolution? Should scientists be able to explain the 'start' of life, would they then be able to re-create life? Perhaps! God, still myth!

[MikeyFlorida]

i'm referring to everything you say. you're as ignorant as most creationists. people like you (creationists included) exacerbate the problem of the masses misunderstanding science. yourself included. creationists included.

your rambling is very unclear- empty incoherent rhetoric and equivocation.

take a course in debate, philosophy, and some critical thinking classes would benefit you also.

[MikeyFlorida]

in concise and direct response to the scattered conjectured messages within that... "paragraph", you should realize that most religions view God as a spiritual being. you can't prove or disprove God through science. science eventually disproves any myths of what this "God" did in the physical world, but to call God a myth directly you are using the same argument from ignorance and that statement is as unfounded as what any religious people say about God as alleged "fact".

[MikeyFlorida]

the assertion you make that "God is a myth" is as unfounded as "God exists." and your view that anything in science can prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being is what puts you in the same boat of scientific ignorance and misunderstanding as creationists.

like creationists, you don't show understanding of the basics of what science even is.

[MikeyFlorida]

and as incoherent and choppy as your comments are, if you address abiogenesis in relation to the concept of a Creator as it seems like you are trying to do, that argument doesn't have an ounce of credibility next to theist claims that "the fact that gravity, math, life, matter etc exists at all is testament to a Creator."

[MikeyFlorida]

your stand seems to be that if abiogenesis is true that it means God does not exist. that assertion being completely misunderstanding of science and flawed in it's fundamental reasoning aside, that idea pales when put up against the theist arguments that the very existence of things like life, matter in general, physics, math etc. is best explained by a Creator/Purpose-giver.

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Firstly, I never said a supernatural force or entity can be proven, or is impossible.

Secondly, there's a big difference between 'god does exist' and 'god's a myth', because 'god IS a myth!' Myth is not a bad word: it means a story passed down, believed true by some, but can't be proven!

Thirdly, science is process of discovery. Although there are some discoveries of why some believe in the supernatural, there are no discoveries or cause to consider any supernatural as being real.

Ok!

[lynchmobb2000]

To posit God exists because he is the creator is the worst argument ever put forward. The same logic says: "Unicorn exists because he is the creator." Or even, "Loch Ness monster exists because he is the swimmer."

You're making truth by assertion and by assumption. To presume god as the creator of the universe, you create the problem of explaining who created and god, and then the infinite regression.

No one knows where the universe came from. It's ok to not know until we figure it out.

[lynchmobb2000]

Darwin called his book "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life". His aim was to explain through evolution,the diversity of life that we see in the world today.

To say that evolution cannot explain the origin of life is the same as saying calculus can't explain how to fix your car. That's not the purpose of calc and doesn't mean it's not true.

Noone knows where life came from. Science admits when it doesn't know. Religion makes up stories. It's ok to not know until we figure it out.

[wildreams]

Very good point made, I hope creationists who read this would give a serious thought about the point you made here.

[DickJohnson3434]

Where can I see the whole video?

[jazzydvds]

send $20 to: Jezebel Productions Box 1348 NY,NY 10011 and I will make you a DVD of his full talk.

[DickJohnson3434]

Can I send 50 instead?

[jazzydvds]

of course- we are a non prfit making science education videos

[JorL5150]

jezebel?