Comments on: Ken Miller’s Final Guest Post: Looking Forward

By: Jose

Jose — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:59:54 +0000

Amazing Dr Miller!!!

By: Hugh Troy

Hugh Troy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:49:04 +0000

“It is naive to assume that everything one sees must have an adaptive value. Yet that is the way the Darwinian mind invariably operates. They can’t help it because they are congenitally unable to imagine a purpose in the origin and evolution of life.”

It is naive to assume that some imaginary sky fairy, or fairies, created the universe as a one off effort, before retiring and that evolution ended after humanity appeared. But creationist cranks can’t help it because they don’t live in the real world where research and evidence are needed to back up their outlandish claims.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:00:52 +0000

Thanks for the laughs, boys! Whenever I become over-awed by the beauty and complexity of the natural world, it’s great to relax with a few giggles over the mind-boggling stupidity of creationists. Frankly, this round is a little short on the spittle-flecked delirium that has kept me smirking in the past, but there’s some good material in there – it just needs polishing up!

Ok, I’m good for a couple of months now. [Goes back to work.]

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:58:03 +0000

Patrick:
“I have a serious question. Can someone please describe how you can believe in evolution and still believe in God? Are you reading the bible in a literal or metaphorical sense?”

I suggest Dr. Miller’s classic on that very subject: “Finding Darwin’s God”.

ISBN-13: 978-0060930493

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

By: Antaeus Feldspar

Antaeus Feldspar — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:08:58 +0000

How embarrassing. I was almost about to reply to “MartinV” and then read further and realized that he’s just a sockpuppet of Davison.

By: Wayne Robinson

Wayne Robinson — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:19:49 +0000

So Darwin is now being attacked because “he couldn’t read German” (Martin V and John Davidson). So what? And anyway, he could. He took a German translation of the Bible with him on the Beagle to keep up his proficiency in German. If you are going to argue irrelevant facts, then you should at least make certain that they are true.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:08:06 +0000

I have a serious question. Can someone please describe how you can believe in evolution and still believe in God? Are you reading the bible in a literal or metaphorical sense?

By: roy

roy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:11:23 +0000

I also am personally disturbed how this ID brouhaha is diminishing America’ s standing in the world. I am worried that other countries who have reality-based polities will see America as less strong or less powerful, because the ID garbage is allowed to pollute our science curricula.

This stuff should be moved to current events or religion classes, in order to protect America’s science reputation.

By: Brian Metscher

Brian Metscher — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:33:34 +0000

Following Mike’s comment (January 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm – “Here’s another part of the strategy:…”):
You have really hit on something I’ve been seeing too. Another component of the continuing strategy is a new successor to Pandas and People from the DI, a book called Explore Evolution (http://www.exploreevolution.com/). It is a scrapbook of all the old creationist heirlooms printed on glossy paper with all the creationist flag words removed. It is probably already being handed out in states like Louisiana that have passed some kind of “Academic Freedom” or “strengths and weaknesses” legislation. This one is designed to fly under the Establishment Clause radar, and fits exactly the strategy you described. (I just reviewed that book for the journal Evolution & Development.)

And you’re right that we need to make clear to educators and education authorities that evolution is just science – teaching what scientists know about it is in no way teaching atheist materialism.

By: Alan Fox

Alan Fox — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:48:20 +0000

Michael Behe comments on Ken Miller's posts, and promises more, later.

By: roy

roy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:26:43 +0000

Davidson – a reply to you would only be necessary if YOU posited a valid objection to Darwinism. I see nothing in your posts that merits response. It seems your arguments are of the “…you ignore the possiblity of…” species, which has a fatal rhetorical weakness. A Darwinian need only defend herself if a credible, specific impeachment is leveled against her theory.

If there is the possiblity of an alternative explanation proceeding on a contradictory path from a shared beginning point with Darwinian theory, you are obliged to pursue it to a credible alternative theory before you attack someone else, and I don’t see the ID people putting in any work.

By: roy

roy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:41:28 +0000

I am new to the Loom but already feel right at home. You people are doing great work (from a layperson).