Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 7th, 2008, 03:01 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Only a Theory, Miller bashes ID

Hey JimB, I recently posted a review of Ken Miller’s Only a Theory, Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, 2008, on Amazon. Miller bashes ID, but yet he himself, a Catholic, is a believer in design. Here’s my review:


Ken Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, argues that ID (Intelligent Design) proponents seek the undoing of not only Darwinism, but more diabolically, four centuries of Western Science. Although I find Miller’s apprehensions and warnings regarding ID less than compelling, he’s still a good writer, a good teacher, and his book is worth reading.

Miller discusses and critiques ID proponent Mike Behe’s arguments. Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, wrote Edge of Evolution (EOE) in 2007, where he argues that although RM+NS (random mutation and natural selection) accounts for much (micro) evolution, that nevertheless evolution via RM+NS has limits, an edge. (I found Behe’s book even better and more informative than Miller’s.)

Miller, unlike most neo-Darwinians, is not an atheist. Miller, like Behe, is a Catholic; both accept common descent, that life evolves, and that the earth is 4 billion plus years old. Interestingly, although Miller maintains that ID and its proponents, like Behe, are bad for America’s scientific soul, Miller himself nevertheless believes in design----he writes in his chapter entitled “Life’s Grand Design”: “There is indeed a design to life. And that design arises out of the very fabric of the universe itself.”

So Miller, like Behe, believes in design, except that Miller doesn’t think the Creator’s design extends as far down as does Behe. Miller apparently sees design only as far as cosmology and the laws of nature and physics; a fine-tuned universe that “knew we were coming,” that was primed for life; whereas Behe sees design extending further down into the forces of biology and evolution.

The primary difference between them is that while Behe is convinced that evolution via RM+NS has limitations or an edge, beyond various contemporaneous and other obvious examples of microevolution----for which both Behe and Miller provide similar examples in their respective books----Miller apparently doesn’t think there’s an edge; although one does get the feeling that Miller is at times hedging his bets b/c much of what he actually discusses in his book is the evidence for common descent (which Behe accepts, as do most rational ID proponents).

Miller discusses many of the same things Behe discusses in his book, such as “facilitated design” (from Kirschner’s and Gerhart’s The Plausibility of Life, Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma) and how it and the discoveries of Evo-Devo (i.e. hox genes, regulatory “tool kits,” etc.) have begun to revolutionize our understanding of evolution; although Miller and Behe often have somewhat different takes regarding the meanings and implications of such discoveries.

Miller alleges that ID is “built upon a stunning lack of curiosity and a lack of remarkable unwillingness to embrace scientific discovery.” Having read Behe’s EOE, I’d disagree. If anything, I’d say that the Darwinian conviction that a directionless RM+NS (and various other mechanisms often mentioned like drift) is a complete explanation for the evolution of the complexity that we see today reveals a remarkably imprudent lack of skepticism by the Darwinians.

Miller discusses one of the (“most dramatic”) examples of evolution by RM+NS, using old genes for new purposes, that was also discussed by Behe in his EOE: “biological antifreeze” in Antarctic fish. As Miller explains it, the process started with an extra copy of a gene for a digestive enzyme, mutations then deleted most of the original gene, and then duplicated over and over again a small portion of the beginning of the gene; the result being a new gene that codes for a protein that acts as an antifreeze agent. But as Behe notes in his EOE, this antifreeze protein, the result of step-by-step mutations, each step providing better antifreeze protection, resulted in merely a blood additive, not a molecular machine with say the sophistication and complexity of even a rather simple protein like hemoglobin.

Miller also discusses the bacterial flagellum and Behe’s claim that it is irreducibly complex (IC), and argues that since about 1/3 of the proteins of the flagellum are “remarkably similar” to all the proteins found in another molecular machine called a type III secretory system (TTSS), that the flagellum itself can therefore be regarded as a TTSS (although the TTSS and the flagellum are different machines having different functions), and that the flagellum is therefore not IC. (Behe disagrees that the TTSS disqualifies the flagellum as being IC.) Nevertheless, Miller does acknowledge that the existence of the TTSS still doesn’t answer how the flagellum, or the TTSS, evolved, or which one evolved first. And Behe would say that’s the point of IC, that something as complex as flagellum can’t evolve in a gradual step-by-step process by RM+NS.

Although neo-Darwinian atheists (i.e. most neo-Darwinians) may enjoy Miller’s ID bashing, they’ll almost certainly, assuming they’re somewhat discerning, find Miller’s overall theistic view of the universe and life disconcerting, delusional, perhaps even dangerous, and contrary to the true spirit of neo-Darwinism and their belief in the power of a directionless, purposeless RM+NS to evolve all the complexity that we see today.

ID proponents, while perhaps taking offense to Miller’s ID bashing, and those that doubt that RM+NS can truly explain all of the evolved complexity that we see today, can assess and learn from Miller’s (and Behe’s) arguments (in their respective books) and determine for themselves how much evolution can honestly and rigorously be attributed to random mutations and selection pressures; and the likelihood that evolution by RM+NS is an incomplete theory.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 10:39 AM
James Brody James Brody is offline
Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,143
Cool ID & Teacher Traits

Fred,
Thanks for your thoughts on Miller's book. I recently came across two more: Giberson, Karl W. (2008) Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. NY: Gininger.
Dowd, Michael (2007) Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World. NY: Viking, 420 pages, 18 chapters, about $25 hardbound.

I found the second on in the religion section at Barnes!

Meanwhile, the "war" broadens"

“Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.” (Berkman, Pacheco, & Plutzer, 2008, e123)


Probably true but not for generally accepted reasons. That is, if G influences religiosity, then the self-selection of whomever takes more courses in evolutionary biology will create larger pools of religious skeptics for hire in our schools. As Sperry noted, “What it comes down to is that modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.”


JimB

Reference:
Berkman MB, Pacheco JS, Plutzer E (2008) Evolution and creationism in America’s classrooms: A national portrait. PLoS Biol 6(5): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.