Mar 012006
 

You know that apothegm about small dogs bark louder and more to compensate for their size? I don’t know if that is true but it certainly is true for Darwinism as demonstrated by Kenneth Miller. Brown University Professor, Author Ken Miller Lectures on Evolution, Intelligent Design

Dr. Miller then discussed some ways to respond to anti-evolution arguments. One argument anti-evolutionists often make is that fossil records do not support evolution because intermediate forms are missing. “If you show this to a paleontologist, their jaw drops,” said Miller.

Eh? Dr. Miller did you mean a paleontologist like Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time” .

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps”

From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices” To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

Wait” maybe Dr Miller meant a paleontologist like Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History confirms what Gee is saying

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job”, If you ask, ‘What is the evidence for continuity?’ you would have to say, ‘There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.

It would appear that Dr. Miller has an ignorance of real paleontology.

Dr. Miller bark bark bark continues”

The truth is, there are so many intermediate forms it is hard to see where one ends and another begins.

Really Dr. Miller? Did you mean the continuous forms from the photosynthetic cells to the compound eye? Yes you are right, we can’t tell where the photosynthetic cells and compound eye begins or ends. Maybe Dr. Miller meant the “so many intermediate forms” from the Pakicetid to Ambulocetid that we can’t tell where this land locked pakicetus ends and the amphibious ambulocetus began. No wonder ID is confused. There is too many fossil evidence that we just can’t tell where it begins or ends. Somebody please take that straitjacket off of Dr. Miller so he can’t teach us more on Darwinian science.

“Why is this a big deal?” asked Miller. The answer, according to Miller, is the future of science in America. We are raising a generation of people who are going to be suspicious of science

Alright, put that straitjacket back on Dr. Miller. The man has no grasp of reality. I dare him or any Darwinist to provide a quote by ID that we want people to be suspicious of science. I double dare you. This is the most malicious lie from Darwinian evolutionists. ID and any scientist with half a brain would be suspicious/skeptical of Darwinian evolution NOT SCIENCE. Newsflash to the man in the straitjacket: Darwinian evolution does not = science.

  3 Responses to “Ken Miller Defends Science”

  1. No, you don’t want people to be suspicious of science — ID advocates can’t figure out why their anti-science rants would produce such a reaction in people — but then, that’s not the least of what ID advocates can’t seem to fathom, or outright deny.

    Has Gee published anything to indicate that he’s ever persuaded any other scientist of his odd views on paleontology? Then, no, he’s not the sort of paleontologist Miller was talking about.

    Your arguments about the whale sequences leave me absolutely astounded. Is it your claim that the well-demonstrated continuum is not well-demonstrated? Or are you seriously confessing the truth, that you can’t tell what’s going on because the sheer mountain of fossil evidence scares the bejabbers out of you?

  2. […] What I love about Darwinists is that every once in awhile you get something delicious like the ones that I’ve blogged about here, here and here. This latest morsel comes from Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh (credit to Dembski @ UD for the find). According to this article, Schwartz thinks that “Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes” . […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.