God, Darwin, and Design 7 - Ken Miller

[HimesInu]

O'Reilly is a species unto himself.

[ThatOneQuestion]

@LoricaLady "TO ANYONE"

No one is listening to you, kid. They all know that you are doing nothing but spreading malicious lies and blatantly ignorant propaganda.

When you keep lying to people, they will stop listening to you. All you are doing is continuing to perpetuate a negative stereotype of the kind of moron commonly assumed to follow fundamentalist groups.

You are a clown, kid, but you are so foolish that no one is laughing.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. And isn't Miller pretty much in the forefront of those - through all his evoevangelizing and court actions and politicing - who want the state to make sure no mention of the word "Creator" is ever even considered in the school system? Folks, this is flim flammery. The same flim flammery that evolution is based on. Criticial thinking and analysis & looking at the dissenting scientists is the only way to not be fooled by it. You DON'T even ever need a Bible to learn to see thru it.

[ThatOneQuestion]

@LoricaLady So tell me, LoricaLady, how goes your campaign of lies and ignorance?

[LoricaLady]

Cont. 'Scuze me, is it logical or scientific to say that extinction shows lack of design for the thing that went extinct? Isn't any evidence for design to be found in the item itself, not in it's extinction? In a sense little black & white t.v. sets & grammophones have gone extinct. Uh, does that show they had no intelligent designer? He says about YHWH "This guy was so clever that He started a process in motion..." But, but, wouldn't that even involve a - gasp! - CRE-A-TOR? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:48 More sad-hilarious examples of evolutionary double talk & double think. Miller says, "I have a higher opinion of God than those who believe in intelligent design." Let me get this straight...now, tell me if I'm missing something here...he says he has a higher opinion of YHWH, aka God, yet he excludes himself from the category of those who believe in intelligent design? ROTFL. "They believe in a God Who had a lot of cheap tricks...He had to designed this...Oop it went extinct..." Cont.

[tegtime]

There is a great misunderstanding in the mind of the layman. There is no absolute right and absolute wrong in science. There is no theory that completely explains a sophisticated phenomenon. Any person who tries to explain a complex issue like evolution or plate tectonics as a complete authority is delusional. The point of science is to get more and more true, not to find absolute truth.

[LoricaLady]

@tegtime "There is no absolute right & wrong in science." Sorry, that's wrong. 1st let's look at the logical fallacy of equivocation where a word that means one thing in one context is used to mean something in another context. Science, operational science, which is testable, repeatable & observable (unlike evo), looks for right & wrong. You think rocket scientists, medical professionals, computer engineers etc. are looking at their plans & saying, "Well, there's no right & wrong in science"?

[LoricaLady]

@tegtime Cont. Let's look at another logical fallacy (evolution & belief on it is completely dependent on logical fallacies), presuming omniscience. Why do you assume I have read no evo lit? I read it and quote it and analyze it all the time here on YT and elsewhere. I won't presume omniscience about you, but I will assume, assume that you don't really ever seriously look at and study over creationist scientist literature. Double standard? Google Colin Patterson That Quote. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. It defies logic, it defies common sense to say "Jesus Christ is the creator of all things for us and our salvation" and then have workshops, as Miller does, on The Collapse of Intelligent Design. If he doesn't see that, should you think of him as an adequate instructor? If he does see that, should you think of him as an adequate instructor? Folks, this is what evo lives on. Double talk, double think, logical fallacies & plain ol' pseudo science - as w the so called primal pond.

[LoricaLady]

7:15 Here is another ex. of how "the dumbing of America" has been and is being worked. Miller agrees with the concept that "through Jesus all things were made for us and for our salvation." Then, this very same person who fights tooth & nail, threatening to go to the Supreme Court & see people "in bad straits" for mentioning the possibility of a Creator, says there is "no conflict" between evo & the Bible. Folks. The 1st law of logic is that 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true.

[LoricaLady]

6:39 Notice when the t.v. show host says, "Explain how I got here from the primordial soup" that Miller in no way tries to dispel a totally unscientifiic notion, but lets it lie there with the audience as a fact. There is 0 evidence for any "primordial soup", 0 evidence that any kind of life can come from inorganic material. In fact the whole idea flies in the face of TRUE science, the LAW of biogenesis, that life only comes from life. Here we see tacit support of a pseudo scientific lie.

[brospec]

@LoricaLady For someone who claims every day that the scientific community are frauds,. incompetent, liars, fabricators of evidence, you seem to be quite over sensitive

Dont be such a fucking hypocrite & stop insulting Christians by pretending to be one

[brospec]

@LoricaLady ......and with that pompous statement, she throws her left breast over her right shoulder and storms off in mock indignation.

Nothing a creationist hates more than being confronted with their own lies

[LoricaLady]

5:00 I don't like, or use, the Icthys, "Christian" fish, as

it is a copy of a pagan symbol from the past. However, some people don't realize that & see it as a kind of sacred object. Once again, with his (frequent) use of the propaganda tactic of ridicule, Miller shows his true bias. He does not really want the Icthys fish & the Darwin fish to be in the absurd position of kissing. He wants to make fun of others who dissent from evo while claiming he sees no conflict with them. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:55 Miller says he would have the Darwin fish kissing the Jesus fish. This has 0 logic. Yeshua, aka Jesus, talked about Adam & Eve, the flood and Noah, etc. and obviously believed every bit of the "Old" Testament. If people want to believe in evolution, fine - though don't push it on little children as science. If they want to reject Scriptures, fine. But to say evolution & Yeshua are compatible is to create a fantasy world. But then evolution creates a fantasy world, so no surprise.

[brospec]

@LoricaLady Its very dangerous to teach children gthat Jesus is the son of god and believed that myths such as Adam & Eve & the flood & Noah are true.

Why force such fairy stories onto children - there is absolutely no evidence for them and its rare worldwide to meet any Christian who takes these things literally

Its sinister that creationists want to fill childrens heads with lies

[ThatOneQuestion]

@LoricaLady Still spamming your desperate lies, eh, LoricaLady?

Day after day, month after month, you keep lying for your religion. You are a proven liar and a hypocrite.

You have been demonstrated to be completely ignorant of all that is science.

[LoricaLady]

3:33 Another thing about this imagey showing the /Darwin fish created to mock the Icthys fish: Here Miller belies his stance of not trying to put down Christianity thru teaching Darwinism. Again, he is pushing a religion. evolution. There is no evidence for any Darwin fish, no evidence mutations or natural selection lead to climbs up the so called Tree of Life, just faith that accudents in the conveniently far away & long ago produced what is statistically impossible & never seen..

[LoricaLady]

If you realy stop and try to visualize how this process could work, not just assume it must all be true because the "scientists" say so, it defies common sense. Folks, let's learn to use our own mind and our own common sense.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. How is that little bump going to do any good until the nerves, blood vessels & muscles, etc. etc. are in place, fully connected and interconnected? How are the "emerging" "evolving" nerves, blood vessels, new skin, totally new types of lungs etc. going to be any good at all until completed? But wait, another accidental bump has formed. Gotta start all over. Where is the evidence this happens thru natural selection, mutatioins, or in fossils? Nowhere, & it defies statistical laws.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. There has to be sim-ul-tan-eous, synch-ron-ous identical development from fin to leg on both sides in the front & simultaneous, synchronous & not identical but complimentary developoment of the legs in back. Evolutionists almost always focus on the outer structures, not on things like the spinal & cranial nerves, muscles,blood vessels, etc. To change a fin into a leg you'd have to cont-in-u-ous-ly REdesign the animal over & over. Not just the leg, the cells, the nerves, muscles etc.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Let's say that a fish has a mutation that leads it to develop some kind of little bump on it's fin that might one day, totally theoretically of course, lead the fin to turn into a foot. Uh, that bump would actually make the animal assymetrical, lopsided, thereby creating a handicap! In order for a fish to get legs turned into fins you need the following things to happen, none of which have been observed, all of which are statistically impossible. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

3:33 I love the Darwin fish. It is a perfect symbol for evolutionary theory: Total fiction. There is, of course, no such fossil to be found anywhere on the planet! There is not even a fossil showing a fin with an "emerging" or "evolving" toe. You have to fill in the blanks because you see, all the inbetween fossils are "missing." Don't ask how one can tell missing from never existed. Don't ask why uncounted billions of fossils worldwide don't reveal them. Think about these things...Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Then, tho evolutioniusts are clueless on life got here, they are going to court to make sure no one ever examines the possibilty, never even considers the possibility, that it came about through intelligent design. Science considers any possibility. Yet evolutionists ytry to squelch even the discussion of any possibibilityy that doesn't fit in with their religion - i.e. evolution. a faith based religion that says only inert matter can create life & that accidents guide it.

[tegtime]

@LoricaLady

While I applaud your tenacity, your lack of understanding of the scientific is off. There is not some mass conspiracy to squelch intelligent design on the bases of it being a threat to the theory of evolution. There is, however, a general lack of evidence to support it. The argument most often made is that the lack of links between species is a proof that evolution is wrong; it is bogus. I would recommend picking up the last years worth of a scientific journal and looking that over.

[LoricaLady]

@tegtime Cont. There you will see an excerpt from the former head paleontologist from the Brit. Mus. of Nat. Hist. admitting to S. Gould - a famous evolutionist - that "there is not one water tight case" for a transitional form, & quotiong other evoutionists who say "There are no transitional forms." Patterson had even more damaging things to say about evo. People have claimed "Quote mine!" when I mention these facts. However, they have never shown where Patterson retracted his statements.

[LoricaLady]

@tegtime Cont. They've also never been able to quote anything to show that Patterson's quotes have been taken out of context. Friend, I ask you to practice what you preach. Seriously look at the other side. I have some creation scientists' vids favorited on my home page. (Not people like VenomFangX - rolling eyes.) Just watch 20 min. of the one on Thermodynamics and you will hear it from the evoutionists themselves that they know there is no ev-i-dence for evolution. Evo = psueod science.

[LoricaLady]

For just a few examples, creationists complain about these things: The teacing of primal pond theory as if it is science when there is 0 evidence for it & it flies in the face of the LAW of biogenesis - i.e. life can only come from life. The phoney teachings about so called evolving peppered moths, teaching children so called evidence for abiogenesis thru Miller & Urey's experiments with the wrong handed kind of amino acids for life, presenting assumptions as data & logical fallacies as facts.

[brospec]

@LoricaLady "Miller & Urey's experiments with the wrong handed kind of amino acids for life"

Phillip Johnson's puppet is still regurgitating the same bullshit

You have had this corrected so many times - but of course, being a creationist you prefer telling lies for Jesus

[LoricaLady]

3:00 "I did take a certain amount of satisfaction....apparently it takes 2 Bibles to outweigh 1 of our textbooks." This statement by Miller is supposed to provide backup for this stance that he sees no conflict between Scriptures & evoluiton? I like Ken MIller's talks. He gives himself away so often! :-D He says, "You see this image of conflict between biology and religion." He knows better. Creationists see no conflict whatsoever between the 2, only w psuedo biology in text books. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:53 I have never even heard of Church & (!?!) State magazine, but they are certainly entitled to their opinions. I would say that the objective of Ken NMiller is to convince people that you can be a believer in YHWH, aka God, and still have seminars on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design" & feel hopeful about future Supreme Court cases where, as he said in another of his vids, those who want to examine the case for a Creator "will be in bad straits." This is the usual evo dbl think, dbl talk.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Let's see now, "Creator" is a dirty word to the big time evoevangelists (not to all evo believers at all) though so far (so far) they are not trying to remove "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" from the history books - I hope. I have been called a liar for Jesus on YT - tho I never even mentioned Him - and have heard all kinds of comments about illiterate (gee wonder how they wrote the Bible) goat herders. Wow. Where does Johnson get that stuff? Hmmmm... Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:48 Miller says Phillip Johnson wants to portray evolutionists as being anti God. ROTFL! Miller has a video series entitled The Collapse of Intelligent Design! This is the same man who does not want the word "Creator" to even be mentioned in the class room - all the while claiming he is a believing Christian himself, mind you - ahem! Have you ever heard Richard Dawkins absolutely trashing YHWH of the Scriptures? I've had tons of virulent anti Bible & God stuff hurled at me, too. Cont.

[brospec]

@LoricaLady "'ve had tons of virulent anti Bible & God stuff hurled at me, too. Cont."

.....but thats because you lie so mucgh whilst pretending to be a Christian. You are as dishonest as that fraud Phillip Johnson

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Typo - meant to say "founders" not "founder." Cont.

[MattleSystem]

@LoricaLady So now you don't just say nothing about Evolution, you say nothing about nothing... Just blabla as always!

keep going I am a fan!

[LoricaLady]

Cont. This is the same evoevangelist who just minutes before crowed over the Dover case as being decided when the judge did not like the use of the words "creation" and "creator" in some past cresationist materials. The founder of this country wrote the king "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The right to say Creator, or even Intelligent design is 1 the evoevangelists want to take away while still saying, "But, but we believe in Gawd tooooo." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:23 Once again, this is the same biochemist who, in another of his politically activists speeches, seen on another YT vid,  said, "Scientists should be above politics." Lol again, more cognitive dissonance? 1:19 Here Miller talks about people who spoke out on the evo side as being "professing Christians." Do their "professions" have anything to do with science? No. These irrelevant facts are cited to try to molify any Gawd-fearin' folk. They think we are so naive. Well, some are. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Folks this is a scam - well, of course, all of evo depends on a scam. It depends on ignoring the basic rules of logic. By the laws of logic 2 contradcitory statements can't both be true. It can't both be true that Someone "created all that is, seen and unseen," and that there is no intelligent design to the universe! Most people just let that absurdity float right on past them as the schools rarely teach students the fundamentals for critical thinking & logic. That's how evo slithers on.

[LoricaLady]

Here Miller, as usual when he starts talking religion, gives a beautiful example of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand I've seen him say on a t.v. show that Yeshua, aka Jesus, "created all that is seen and unseen" & lets everyone kinow he's Roman Catholic. On the other hand he gives lectures on the so called Collapse of Intelligent Design. LOL! He assures folk that he certainly is not trying to take away anyone's religious freedom - while insisting no one ever says "intelligent designer."

[SVSfootballman09]

Creationism makes me sick.

[LaingGod]

the damn YECtards are just a bunch of fraudsters.

[shorty962]

"Science is agnostic, but that doesn't mean it can't beat the hell out of some bronze age myths every once in a while."

[theot58]

Ken is a fine presenter but it does not negate some key issues:

1) The Holy Bible says that God created the world. There is evidence of design, which makes it totally reasonable that there was a designer.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..

2) The scientific evidence supporting evolution is so weak that when I keep asking "what is the scientific evidence for evolution" I get fobbed off with silly jargon.

3) Evolution is a religion.

[wolfman49er]

I'm just curious, i hear this tossed around alot, how evolution is a religion and all, and i am curious, without defining religion myself; how is evolution a religion? On the second point by theot58, two questions, are you a scientist/biologist, and have you engaged in a study, and i mean real academic study, concerning evolution? A tactic by several non scientific literate anti-evolution speakers is to attack the language used in a 20 year old school textbook. Read the literature, please.

[theot58]

- I am a qualified Electrical Engineer working for a major control systems company.

- I assert that Evolution is a religion because the scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution is so weak that people must BELIEVE that is is true.

Most evolution supporters believe in evolution principally because they want to be free from moral accountability.

The Bible says that the living God cares about us and came bring us true life and joy. Pushing Him away is really dumb.

[sunlitekid01]

what does Electrical Engineering have to do with Biology??

Ur understanding of it is just as good as those millions of jusesheads trying to spread thier dirty lies and ignorance in the world..what makes u think anyone should listen to what u have to say.??? LOL.... makes me think if u really are an engineer :P

[puncheex]

@theot58:

1) What does it matter what it says in a religious text? What evidence?

2) You only think its silly jargon whenever someone tries to speak with precision. Did Miller give you any jargon?

3) You mean Miller's got two? Disagree.

[Demosthenes6666]

@theot58 Actually, it -does- negate those key issues. Ken answered them. If you can't be assed to listen, don't comment. And "silly jargon", incidentally, can be translated as "big words I don't understand"- personal incredulity is not a valid argument.

[pyxlated]

Colbert is awesome.

[sarge2006]

As I see it, religion and science are totally compatable as long as you're willing to be interpretive with your beliefs and open minded. My reasons for being an atheist have nothing to do with their being incompatible - they're not; I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God.

[theot58]

The Holy Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Evolution says, the heavens and earth and all the life forms that we see, made themselves.

Are they compatible?

Does evolution make even scientific sense? I don't think so.

[sarge2006]

Of course they're compatable. You just have to take the Bible on faith and look at Genesis metaphoricly.

I'm sorry if you think evolution doesn't make sense. It's not my fault you flunked biology.

[theot58]

How can you have a painting without a painter? Or a house without a builder?

When I did Biology in year 11, I was impressed with the absolutely intricate design of the human eye system. The design is midblowing.

How can you have a design without a designer.

Evolution is the biggest deception of the last few hundred years

[sarge2006]

Is a human a painting? Is a human a house? We are biological organisms, we do not need to be painted on a canvas or built up by construction workers. Do you think your organs are held together by nails and paint?

It's natural to be impressed by the complexity of life, but don't forget that we can also explain the complexity of life thorugh science. We know how the eye formed. I'll send you a video.

[sunlitekid01]

evolution does make scientific sense.. the BIBLE does'nt.

evolution is the product of sceince...so is everything around you. If u wanna deny evolution u shud deny sceince and stop using its products. that includes EVERYTHING around you..so stop being a hypocrit!!..and grow the fuck up...the BIBLE is a fairy tale for grown ups.. :)

[cropuless]

Religion is left over from a time when man didn't have concrete evidence to explain the world around him. Still, despite the light that science has shed on the subject, humanity as a whole (or at least speaking for a majority of people) has not matured enough to let go of the nice feeling they get of being guaranteed a "life after death" because they are too afraid of the darkness that comes after their final breath. However, if you were trying to describe evolution in congruency with religion

[cropuless]

I would explain it as follows... In our entire universe there seems to be a certain "movement towards life." (i.e. matter coalesces into planets, amino acids coalesce to form proteins forms DNA forms unicellular organisms etc etc.) By this theory then your so called "God" could be described as the energy by which life is created, also by this theory life is not just in the bodies of sentient organisms but in everything... sort of like the "God" I heard about in church as a child

[puncheex]

@theot58: If you insist on Bible inerrancy, then you have a problem. Most Christians don't.

None so blind...

[RockSmithStudio]

@sarge2006 which is fine. I am very similar to Ken Miller in that God created the universe and the diversity of life through the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. Jesus and Darwin are probably best of buddies in heaven.

[dekippiesip]

[quote]Ken Miller is a great biologist but a bad philosopher. This entire series was great, but his belief that evolution and religion are compatible is silly in my opinion.[/quote] Tell me why that is silly. Are most of the catholics silly? I don't think so. Evolution doesn't disprove the exsintence of god that is just big big bullshit. Ever heard of theological evolution? Hmm who's the bad filosofer here???

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

The problem is that acceptance of evolution relies on a different epistemological paradigm than that provided by Catholicism. If science is based on an epistemology that requires evidence and reason, and the evolutionist accepts that epistemology, he must turn the same epistemological spotlight on Catholicism. On that basis, Catholicism fails to meet the same standards that one uses to discount creationism. Miller is inconsistent in applying his epistemology.

[puncheex]

@PianoIsTheRemedy: That is incorrect. The RC church, the CoE and most "liberal" Protestant denominations accept science as running it's own shop in its own magisteria, as Gould would have said. They do that, mainly, by interpreting the Bible as a metaphorical ethics lesson book rather than as physical truth. It is mainly evangelical Christians who have this rigid outlook that wish to replace science.

[Munro1Man]

Evolution does not disprove god. It does disprove the all loving ,caring Christian god though !

I don't think Catholics are silly, as most of them don't follow the rules set down by the Pope. That's not silly, its good for all of us.

[dinkypoopstick]

I like Miller, he always does a good presentation and is respected for debunking Behe's iredusable complexity, but I am sad about his Christianity. I want to see a conversation between Miller and Dawkins about Miller's religiosity

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Right on.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Ken Miller is a great biologist but a bad philosopher. This entire series was great, but his belief that evolution and religion are compatible is silly in my opinion.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Even if it were compatible philosophically, his choice to favor Catholicism over non-theism boggles my mind.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I would venture to guess that most people who believe in evolution are confronted with serious questions relating to religion and spirituality. Perhaps Ken thinks atheism vs. non-theism is not a part of it but I disagree. When you get into a philosophical question about what is more likely regarding the initiation of the "process", religion comes into play. Occum. Why do we need God to start the process? At best, deism is an option. From there to catholicism is ridiculous.

[Albukhshi]

I suggest you watch part 8, as an advice.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I watched part 8. Still not impressed. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book called "Rock of Ages" trying to show that religion's questions are independent from science, and I think the book is an epic fail. Miller and Collins are both profoundly mixed up on philosophical matters.

[Albukhshi]

I see.

well, my only advice is not to be too judgemental about this. they might be seeing this differently than you do.

but that's just my personal opinion on the matter....

[puncheex]

@PianoIsTheRemedy: Man, we get your message.

Science has no truck with religion. Sorry you (and Dawkins, I presume) disagree. I don't see the need.

[AbbeyNormal]

He forgot the Cthulhu fish! I have one of those. I'm also planning on getting a Darwin fish and cutting out the darwin and putting in Jesus. Just to screw with people :D

[puncheex]

@AbbeyNormal: I think he'd have problems with fitting that into the tree.

[Deliratio]

What's written in the fish at 5:25? I can't really read it.

[ctastrophe]

It's a Gefilte fish (kosher dish).

[Deliratio]

ah ok, thanks!

[greatsea]

Ken Miller is my new hero!

[xavierartorivs]

If you also have the time, dig into the "real" book of Mathew and make your own correlations of the phallus swallowing fish and what psycho christians say the fish represents. Then again, let them say that the fish = jesus; afterward, draw your own conclusions from accepting both. It's quite hilarious and reinforces why the bible only posts the Cliff's Notes version of the book of Mathew. Don' take my word for it, get out there and pick up a few books yourself!

[xavierartorivs]

If you research (go to a real library) ΙΧΘΥΣ, the fish, and the Ichthys symbol, you will find that ΙΧΘΥΣ is listed as a phallus swallowing fish. Others point to fertility & Atargatis. Reaching further back into antiquity, and rotating the symbol vertically you will see the blade and very wide opening. I will have to post a pic of this verticle fish that is on the side of a church. Knowing the ancient meaning brings a smile as I occasionally drive past it.

[Abdulmelik2007]

Don = "little" Ken Miller.

You are both our heroes.

[Funkypotat0]

Why does it say "Invalid arguments" at the top of the screen? It has the red bar thing, just like what happens when you try to view a suspended account.

[Inqoinf]

the play list is messed up for some reason...

[Faustuss1]

Thanks for uploading. When I took biology in highchool, I actually used one of Ken Miller's books. I live in georgia btw.

[sighuponsigh]

"N'Chips" Lmao

[aleceth]

nevermind, i found it. just search "fsm fish" in google.

[aleceth]

Does anyone happen to know a place i can find the FSM fish to put on my car?

I assume he just made it up for the presentation but i'd like to think someone might have actually made it.

[LordTataraus]

The Colbert Report is the best! If one of my professors went on there that would be awesome! Oh, and thanks for the upload Don, you're great.

[starvinmarvin90]

Awesome

[hellshade2]

the fish icons part was pretty good. i almost choked on my drink with the fsm icon :)

[DAVIDFAVEL]

Excellent presentation, As usual

[Creationismsucks]

Who the hell wrote "invaild arguments" along the top in a pink banner? Is there any cowardly crap that creationists won't stoop to?

[DonExodus2]

Oh, I think thats a computer glitch with the playlist :P

[Creationismsucks]

HaHa!  I'm an idiot!

[aleceth]

hah, i was confused too.

[ride4ruin]

"And maybe even Bill O'Reilly."

Burned! Ken Miller is great.

[ProcInc]

Creationism has made so many people lose enormous amounts of respect in christianity.

[sophophilo]

amen :(

[FreePrometheus]

Thats the cool thing about him. He admits full heartedly that evolution did occur and he's still able to keep his theological beliefs. Proof that evolution is not atheistic.

[Celladore0]

Ken Miller really is an excellent speaker, but to be honest, I don't really think he believes in god. Its just that it makes him so much more effective against intelligent design for the moderates. Whenever he refers to god, he may as well use the word "nature."

[ProcInc]

"Whenever he refers to god, he may as well use the word "nature.""

If humans have learnt anythihng since the enlightenment, it appears that if there is anything to be labelled 'god' in this cosmos, nature is definitely it

[theinquisitor]

I don't understand why people believe in god, but the fact that we evolved doesn't seem to be the biggest hurdle (the fact of needless suffering is the real problem with belief in a loving god).

There are a lot of people who believe in both god and evolution, and not all just because they don't know anything about evolution. Perhaps Miller is compartmentalising or perhaps we just don't get it. I'd like to know exactly what he means when he says "god". Perhaps it's covered in his book.

[Elcristoph]

I think youve spent to much time around creationists...the bible isnt a litral book...

the reason you see evolution and god as been incompatible is becouse you see the bible the way creationists do...as been litral...

[dancingnature]

hes catholic ..catholics accept evolution

[trac4yt]

danc,

"catholics accept evolution"?

Oh, they don't accept a literal Genesis?

Do they believe in a literal fall..

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Ro 5:12)

Thus, the source of histopathologies.

:-)

[gr0mithtimon]

Vatican accepts evolution

[puncheex]

@trac4yt: Yeah, the Bible for Catholics is not a literally interpreted book. Yes, they believe in the fall (original sin), so they insist that somewhere along the line God infused a soul that makes man different from animals and that mankind made a choice along the way to sin, thus requiring Jesus to save everyone (in his own good time, of course).

[puncheex]

@Celladore0: As a Catholic he has top believe something more than that. I think it's foolish to be trying to tell him (or Einstein, or Jefferson, or anyone, really) what he believes. Furthermore, there's no point to it.

[puncheex]

Besides, if you are really interested, you can go buy his book "Finding Darwin's God".

[busymartian]

Ken Miller. The best.

[CadicusTheDamned]

Ah, I see you got the linking to work. Sweet.

[HeadoftheHydra]

Awesome videos. I've seen most of this before, but Ken Miller is a great guy. I do not agree with his theological views, but I still think he is really great.