God, Design and ID - Ken Miller

[LoricaLady]

TO ANYONE: i (along with some others) get followed around YT by evo vid guard dogs who keep leaving posts to me tho they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying & sometimes even sexual harrassement. Of course true debate is not possible under such conditions. Though I like to dispel disinfo & sophistry where I can, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.

[LoricaLady]

5:00 "Natural processes are just as much His work as anything else." Yet in the Dover trial Miller goes out of his way to make sure that no one dare even consider the supernatural and castigated those who even hinted at the word "Creator." Folks, this is double talk. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. That's what evo always is one way or another, though.

[pontecanis]

@LoricaLady ~~More brilliance from Lorica!! Way to pay attention~~ see Ken talking about "special creation' and 'irreducible complexity'. Nice projection there Lorica: put YOUR double talk and newspeak onto Dr. Miller, when you clearly understand NOTHING about science and couldn't be bothered to try to understand what he says either.You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it sat on your face.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. "The Creator...is the designer of all those natural processes." But...He designed all that without intelligence, w/o intelligent...design? What evidence does he have for saying that a designer is responsible for those natural processes? I don't think he has ever said. Intelligent design advocates give their evidence: irreducible complexity. Then evolutionists give evidenceless "explanations" to debunk i.c. - with more illogic. Evo is built on logical fallacies start to finish.

[LoricaLady]

4:00 Miller says "The 2 ideas" of evo & special creation "are not in conflict to begin with." You can see him on the Colbert show, here on YT, saying that, as an RC, he believe "Jesus Christ created all that is seen and unseen." Yet he holds workshops on The Collapse of Intelligent Design. 1st Law of logic: 2 contradictory statement cannot both be true. Unless Yeshua, aka Jesus, was a stoopid Designer? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. "That for some strange reason looks remarkably like evolution." What is strange is a theory misrepresented by someone who should know better. This will fool those who don't really know what the other side is saying. To back up some I think it is iinteresting that he uses the word "novelities" to point to the "first" complex, fully formed, animals in the "Cambrian period." It makes them seem so uncharacteristic. They were not novelties but in the billions. Some still live today. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:00 Miller gives a good description of intelligent design. Initially. Then he presents a flase idea when he says others say the special creation was done "repeatedly". What intelligent design advocate says that? None that I ever heard of. No one is saying "Creation. Extinction. Creation. Extinction" in the i.d. movement. They are saying Creation, Extinction, more Extinction, more extinction, etc.. The fossil records shows more kinds of animals in the past than now. Cont.

[TKStoddart]

This turned out to be crazier than I expected. The "creation/extinction/creation/­extinction that looks like evolution" part is the most crazy. I thought it would make more sense. I am disappointed.  There is no real conflict. One story is made up, whole cloth, and the other is a theory that attempts to explain the evidence. There is no conflict; one side is just wrong.

[alexomnislash]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU CRAZY PEOPLE!!! THERE IS NO GOD! THERE NEVER WAS A GOD. AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A GOD. QUIT TALKING TO AN INVISIBLE ENTITY IN THE SKY! SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS YOU WEAK PATHETIC EXCUSES FOR LIFE!!

[AlexanderRaccoon]

@alexomnislash go get laid.

[alexomnislash]

@AlexanderRaccoon I'm proud of the pussy I get. As well as the fact that I won't go to "hell" just because I'm getting that pussy. Now, go be an internet tough guy somewhere else christfag.

[Jacob011]

well... here's a hackup. according to K. Miller (theistic evolucionist) God made evolution which accounts for the origins of all living things.

But wait a sec, evolution doesn't explain the origin of life ? At best it decribes the origin of the species not the life itself. It starts with first living cell; it doesn't go beyond that !

[alexomnislash]

@Jacob011 How can it? Just because science hasnt provided all the answers doesnt mean that god exists.

[umrahsahab]

@yboris The thing is just cause we have a scientific explanation for something does not mean God didnt do it. Why should we assume that God acts in ways like humans. If God is beyond space and time why would he NEED to be bound by those laws. If we cant completely comprehend God how could we comprehend how he acts through things. We must realize first and foremost God is not bound by space or time:) Take care...

[Bereitwilligkeit]

What foolishness..

[gregrutz]

God made the laws of nature, everything else evolved. My thoughts exactly.

[nakedapedude]

@gregrutz

if god made them, they aren't laws because he can unmake them

there are no such thing as "laws of nature", we see certain intrinsic properties in the universe and we put labels on our observations

[gregrutz]

god can unmake them, I hope he doesn't change gravity or we will all fall of the earth.

[nakedapedude]

@gregrutz

it's ok he'll get angels to hold everything down (lol)

[StopSpamming1]

4:49 ..., if he exists, ... makes him an agnostic.

[KPhysicsGeek]

@ StopSpamming1

No, it makes him a deeply spiritual person who is aware of human fallibility. In fact I would go as far to say as anyone who does not readily admit their faith, there understanding of God, might be wrong commits idolatry, replacing God with their own vision.

This humility may be what you mean by "agnostic" but then I would say that anyone with a mature faith would be agnostic.

[C0ldking]

Ken Miller is truely amazing, I would argue, that this cold "hard on" faith he talk about ... but he atleast he says himself that it is only faith. He is remarkable..

This answered a Question i have wondered about for a while :D

[gextvedde]

Ken Miller is great to listen to but I still find it difficult to hear to him or any other theist suggest that evolution doesn't conflict with God. It may not conflict with the idea of a god or gods but it does conflict with the idea of a God who cares because it means he has woven imense suffering into the very fabric of his creation. We can't say suffering is the result of a 'fall' from grace because there wasn't one. Why not make a world where people are happy?

[truckcompany]

I saw a lecture by ken that answered that exact same question. It has been pulled off the internet and im trying to looking for it again.

When i heard it it made total sense to me.

He was wearing a white suit

[gextvedde]

Well if you find it let me know because I'd be interested in what he has to say.

[Birdieupon]

"it does conflict with the idea of a God who cares because it means he has woven imense suffering into the very fabric of his creation. We can't say suffering is the result of a 'fall' from grace because there wasn't one."

Very well said. That is probably the key problem in reconciling the two. God would need an extremely good reason for his pre-fall creative methods to be so brutally darwinian. And if there was a "fall" after that, would you blame homosapiens for it after such a bum deal?

[bluetigerfish90]

Do you think the entire universe is about 6,000 years old?

[Birdieupon]

Nope, it's 13.5 billion.

[bluetigerfish90]

You obviously don't know much geology, paleontology, and anthropology then. If you accept an old earth, then you accept the fossil record. It is clear that homo sapiens didn't appear until after a whole lot of animals died. The only way to rig the fossil record such that there was a golden age followed by a fall is to embrace young earth creationism. If you embrace young earth creationism you reject science. I'm a theistic evolutionist, and I'm an evangelical Christian. You need a theodicy.

[Birdieupon]

@bluetigerfish90

Funnily enough, I think we agree on more than it appears to you. I accept evolution completely. I was rasing the problem of how one can reconcile theodicy with the evidence.

I'd be interested, in that case, how would you do it? Do you take William Dembski's view that the Fall had retroactive effects?

[bluetigerfish90]

Haha Ok.  I haven't read Dembski's theodicy. John Hick wrote an Irenaen theodicy which hinges upon the creation of humankind through the evolutionary process as an immature creature living in a challenging and therefore person-making world. I'm sure there are many other theodicies.

[Birdieupon]

@bluetigerfish90

Do you think, however, that one could still draw influences of intelligent design based upon the information content of DNA? This is especially bearing in mind that evolution needs a replicating organism before it can even start, so I would see the two as being compatible if it were the case that design took place in the cell (instead of the young earth, literal 6 day garbage).

[bluetigerfish90]

There are at least 2 approaches to natural theology.

1. Aggressive approach (aka god of the gaps)-- Find a gap and infer god is the best way to explain it. History has shown this is risky because gaps often get filled.

2. Modest approach- Infer god is the best way to explain the regularities in nature that allow nature to be intelligible.

An intelligent designer can also be inferred from the beauty, complexity, and functionality of nature, without appealing to (1).

[Scrapheap71]

I'll drink to that!! ;-)

[yboris]

How bizarre it is, although, that he doesn't see science and a belief in god as in conflict. Perhaps I should read his books to understand - what sort of god does he have in mind? An utterly passive one with no way to affect the world? Or one that can nudge things this way and that? Miller's approach seems utterly unorthodox. Oh well - at least he doesn't hate on science :)

[maestroMagoo89]

@yboris you should read his book "Finding Darwin's God". He has a *very* interesting discussion of Quantum theory and how that relates to God.

[HugNow]

@yboris I never understood this Ken Miller guy either, it's like he's wearing some kind of blind fold while he is in the catholic church celebrating, or something? Which religion is he part of anyway?

[1tabligh]

@yboris Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[alexomnislash]

@yboris A god that fit with what we know. For example you say god made the earth 4,000 years ago . I show you evidence to the contrary and you say well never mind god created the earth at the beginning of time and this time I'm SURE.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@yboris i dont think he's religous 4 some reason

[Scrapheap71]

Ken Miller should go on a tour across the country, to educate fundamentalist christian retards.

[coolerdude111]

Hell yea!

[Nades129]

fundamentalists have a technique called "close ur eyes, cover ur ears and sing kumbaya"... so it would be hard