Ken Miller on the Scientific Process

Ken Miller, Ph.D, on the scientific process and the idea of "fairness" in science education.

From the series "Listen To The Scientists - Evolution Vs. Creationism".



For the segment in its entirety, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNxXlq8_OTA

Kenneth Miller is a Professor of Biology at Brown University.

I recommend his new book: " Only A Theory" : http://tinyurl.com/8oeksz

Visit his websites at:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Kenneth
• Miller
• Listen
• To
• The
• Scientists
• Scientific
• Process
• Science
• Education
• Intelligent
• Design
• Creationism
• Evolution

[LoricaLady]

@Sdrewski84 You say "Creationists enjoy the fruits of true science...& baselessly argue against it when it come to evolution." I just posted several comments below on why evolution is NOT true science and why it does not, as this vid states, use "the scientific process." Would you care to try to show me wrong in anything I said, using "true science", i.e. things that are observable, repeatable & testable?

[LoricaLady]

...has been wrong over & over in the scientific community. For ex. at one time even Einstein thought - along with all scientists - that the universe was eternal,also germ theory was ridiculed & so on. What you're being told is "Don't think for yourself. Read our 'publish-what -we-want-or-perish' peer reviews & wait for us to give you our consensus." That ain't the scientific process. But then evolution is not science but pseudo science, even anti science.

[LoricaLady]

...reviews in a self perpetuating, orthodox Darwinian atmosphere are actually used to block dissent. Let's see some things that got great peer reviews. Haeckle's admittedly fraudulent ontology recapitulates phylogony, peppered moth "evolution", coelacanth as a transition - oops then a real one showed up & was 100% fish period - Miller & Urey who actually cooked up amino acids that KILL life - well, the list goes on & on.  He wants us to wait for a "consensus..." Consensus...

[LoricaLady]

0 in betweeners. Oh some of them will tell you things like Archaeopteryx are inbetweeners, but then other evolutionists will come along & say, Well, no, not really... There is no universal agreement amongst evolutionists on a single "transitiion" and really not on much else either. We are being told here that peer reviews are part of the scientific process. Not really. Aristotle, Gallileo, Mendell & legions of others taught us much about science w/0 "peer reviews." The truth is peer...

[LoricaLady]

...in any way. We are told, again with magical thinking, that its invisible descendants' invisible descendants led to tetrapods based on imaginary, invisible lines leaving to imaginary, invisible dots. This is like when they tell us that fins turned into feet, feet into wings, fish into tetrapods, scales into feathers & tetrapods into birds when the actual fossil evidence in uncounted BILLIONS shows the exact oppostie. All we see are 100% fish, fin, feet, tetrapods, feathers & birds &....

[LoricaLady]

...similariites....we infer..." and lots & lots of magical thinking. For ex. Miller shows us a fossil of Tiktaalik & tells us "it is as good as it gets for a transitionial fossil." How right he is. It's presented as a bridge between fish & tetrapods but (1) it is 100% lobe finned FISH, which, btw as a conveniently missing back end (2) they have absolutely 0 evidence it isn't just 1 of innumerable extinct dead end animals and ever produced any progeny significantly different from itself...

[LoricaLady]

When Miller uses the word science to describe evo he is using the logical fallacy of equivocation. He is wanting people to equate things like astronomy, medical science, physics and so on with evo. Those other things are testable, repeatable & observable. Evo is not. There is 0 "evidence" for evolution. All of it is based on more logical fallacies & speculation presented as evidence with words like "millions of [conveniently untestable & unobservable] years ago...it is believed...

[enyskept]

WTF IS A EVANGELICAL ATHEIST!!!???!!???

[coltsrule5150]

i am an evangelical atheist

but i have a ton of respect for this man

[Sdrewski84]

Oh and btw for those below, true quantum physicis/mechanics deals specifically with random particles and their relation to structured attraction. So don't listen to the YouTube comment section "science experts" who are attempting to debunk centuries of proven physics research with religious excuses regurgitated from their Sunday school lesson. My team got us to the moon (science), your team got us blind faith, religious persecution, an uneducated populace, and fear of hellfire (religion).