Kenneth Miller's Reconciliation of Relgious Faith and Evolution Theory

[Berserk]

I just watched this YouTube video of cell biologist Kenneth Miller's lecture at Yale. It is the most stimulating lecture I have ever heard online. It has the potential to elevate the level of dialogue created by the God and evolution thread. Among other things, it has prompted me to rethink (not reject) Behe's argument for irreducible complexity/ Against Behe, Miller cites on 20 published studies on the possible evolution of the flagellum :"machine." I say "rethink" because I'd need to know more about the detailed arguments of theses studies (which Behe rejects) before finalizing my conclusion.

As I mentioned on the God and evolution thread, Miller is considered by many the poster boy for evolution theory on the lecture circuit, the key witness against Intelligent Design in courts cases about the place of evolution theory in public education, and an author of a standard high school and college text book on biology and evolution. I'd be very interested to ponder reader reactions to the way Miller's (for me, surprising) Catholicism is reconciled with this secular role. I'd also be interested in what readers think of his characterization of the agenda of Intelligent Design proponents like the Discovery Institute. When You watch this, please be sure also to watch the Q & A session afterwards. This is Yale and the questioners are very perceptive and knowledgeable. Here then is the video:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6A296628430FF65FA2C96A296628430FF65&FORM=VIRE

 

[Skwim]

What would you like to debate?


.

 

[viole]

I just watched this YouTube video of cell biologist Kenneth Miller's lecture at Yale. It is the most stimulating lecture I have ever heard online. It has the potential to elevate the level of dialogue created by the God and evolution thread. Among other things, it has prompted me to rethink (not reject) Behe's argument for irreducible complexity/ Against Behe, Miller cites on 20 published studies on the possible evolution of the flagellum :"machine." I say "rethink" because I'd need to know more about the detailed arguments of theses studies (which Behe rejects) before finalizing my conclusion.

As I mentioned on the God and evolution thread, Miller is considered by many the poster boy for evolution theory on the lecture circuit, the key witness against Intelligent Design in courts cases about the place of evolution theory in public education, and an author of a standard high school and college text book on biology and evolution. I'd be very interested to ponder reader reactions to the way Miller's (for me, surprising) Catholicism is reconciled with this secular role. I'd also be interested in what readers think of his characterization of the agenda of Intelligent Design proponents like the Discovery Institute. When You watch this, please be sure also to watch the Q & A session afterwards. This is Yale and the questioners are very perceptive and knowledgeable. Here then is the video:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6A296628430FF65FA2C96A296628430FF65&FORM=VIRE

I would like to help, but I can't.

How people manage to accept the scientific othodoxy about evolution, while still keeping their faith in the Christian God, is totally puzzling to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

It is possible, even urgent, to reconcile evolution with creationism.

Unfortunately for many, the only honest way of doing that is by rescuing the meaning of "creationism" from the unfair, hopeless conotations it has been saddled with. It must be understood to be the simple belief in a creator God and cleansed from the denialistic burden so many people insist on lending it.

 

[sayak83]

I just watched this YouTube video of cell biologist Kenneth Miller's lecture at Yale. It is the most stimulating lecture I have ever heard online. It has the potential to elevate the level of dialogue created by the God and evolution thread. Among other things, it has prompted me to rethink (not reject) Behe's argument for irreducible complexity/ Against Behe, Miller cites on 20 published studies on the possible evolution of the flagellum :"machine." I say "rethink" because I'd need to know more about the detailed arguments of theses studies (which Behe rejects) before finalizing my conclusion.

As I mentioned on the God and evolution thread, Miller is considered by many the poster boy for evolution theory on the lecture circuit, the key witness against Intelligent Design in courts cases about the place of evolution theory in public education, and an author of a standard high school and college text book on biology and evolution. I'd be very interested to ponder reader reactions to the way Miller's (for me, surprising) Catholicism is reconciled with this secular role. I'd also be interested in what readers think of his characterization of the agenda of Intelligent Design proponents like the Discovery Institute. When You watch this, please be sure also to watch the Q & A session afterwards. This is Yale and the questioners are very perceptive and knowledgeable. Here then is the video:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6A296628430FF65FA2C96A296628430FF65&FORM=VIRE

It is not surprising that the Catholic church or many denominations of Christianity have no problems with evolution. Originally the churches in Europe (in England, German Protestants and Catholics) were not hostile to evolution. I suspect that the rising hostility in the early 20th century was more due to the association of biological evolutionary theory with social Darwinism, eugenics and racial views of man. Now that such views has been utterly discredited, and evolutionary theory is a fully mainstream scientific endeavor, not associated in any way with spurious theories about morality and race, the hostility of Catholic or traditional Protestant churches has ceased.
Here is the official stance of the Catholic church for now
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

The pope also goes on to lay out how to reconcile the investigation about the evolution of humanity through evolution with the Christian view,

With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.

Similar views are taken by Anglicans, Mainline Protestants . The main objectors are found among Southern Baptists and the major Pentecostal groups.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/
http://episcopalscience.org/creation-science/

So a lot of Christians denominations do accept the scientific theory of evolution.

Of course many other religions (like Hinduism and Buddhism) have a far greater acceptance of evolution. But that is another issue.


Its cool that you are relooking at the evidence after watching the video. I am hopeful that if you do not have the presuppositions of the particular brand of Christian theology that hangs its faith on the falsity of evolution (which I think has no justifications) , then you will so how good the evidence for evidence is in terms of what is expected from scientific theories.

 

[Berserk]

The theory of evolution is foundational to modern scientific disciplines and thus needs to be taught for its heuristic value. Intelligent Design advocates need to admit that they lack a comprehensive alternative theory to offer the education system. This deficiency leaves them with the implausible "God of the gaps:" I. e. the view that natural selection and genetic mutation produce increased complexity and adaptability over time, until an irreducibly complex leap (e. g. the flagellum) is needed, forcing God to step in with a special act of creation. That view is not only implausible; it transforms evolution into a theory that becomes increasingly unfalsifiable even in principle. So if an Intelligent Designer is needed, that Designer surely builds the future potential for otherwise irreducibly complex systems like the flagellum into the outflow of matter/ energy right from the Big Bang. That, I believe, is the position implicit in Miller's theology (though I love to learn if he agrees).

I guess I continue to have a twofold major quibble: (1) The analogy of an outboard motor does seem apt for the flagellum "machine;" and so it does seem irreducibly complex like Behe's mousetrap analogy suggests. The scientific response to Behe seems to involve the alleged "cannibalization" of parts from other molecular "machines," parts that seem structurally similar to their corresponding flagellum part. But what is hard for me to swallow is the claim that random selection and genetuc mutation can "reengineer" the flagellum by incorporating these parts. For this to happen, each gradual mutation would seem to need some adaptive function and that new function does not seem to have been demonstrated. So I don't think Behe's mousetrap analogy commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

What then might account for the formation of irreducibly complex molecular "machines?" I'm a historian and , as such, must confess that I'm not current on the latest attempts in scientific journals to refute Behe. So I'm left with 2 other possibililties: (1) I'm intrigued by biologist Rupert Sheldrake's studies that seem to support his theory of morphogenetic fields around crystals and living systems. I'd appreciate any scientific assessment of this Sheldrake video in which he lays out this theory and the research invoked in its support:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...CF4DE2FE49720626754ACF4DE2FE4972062&FORM=VIRE

(2) Science has a very poor understanding of the cause and nature of consciousness (life).and therefore can't solve the age-old mind/body problem. I wonder if unknown laws of consciousness (life) are essential to the explanation of how even alleged irreducibly complex systems and molecular "machines" can evolve with the help of random selection and genetic mutation. I'd welcome any constructive engagement that might help me advance my inquiry.

 

[fantome profane]

The theory of evolution is foundational to modern scientific disciplines and thus needs to be taught for its heuristic value. Intelligent Design advocates need to admit that they lack a comprehensive alternative theory to offer the education system. This deficiency leaves them with the implausible "God of the gaps:" I. e. the view that natural selection and genetic mutation produce increased complexity and adaptability over time, until an irreducibly complex leap (e. g. the flagellum) is needed, forcing God to step in with a special act of creation. That view is not only implausible; it transforms evolution into a theory that becomes increasingly unfalsifiable even in principle. So if an Intelligent Designer is needed, that Designer surely builds the future potential for otherwise irreducibly complex systems like the flagellum into the outflow of matter/ energy right from the Big Bang. That, I believe, is the position implicit in Miller's theology (though I love to learn if he agrees).

I guess I continue to have a twofold major quibble: (1) The analogy of an outboard motor does seem apt for the flagellum "machine;" and so it does seem irreducibly complex like Behe's mousetrap analogy suggests. The scientific response to Behe seems to involve the alleged "cannibalization" of parts from other molecular "machines," parts that seem structurally similar to their corresponding flagellum part. But what is hard for me to swallow is the claim that random selection and genetuc mutation can "reengineer" the flagellum by incorporating these parts. For this to happen, each gradual mutation would seem to need some adaptive function and that new function does not seem to have been demonstrated. So I don't think Behe's mousetrap analogy commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

What then might account for the formation of irreducibly complex molecular "machines?" I'm a historian and , as such, must confess that I'm not current on the latest attempts in scientific journals to refute Behe. So I'm left with 2 other possibililties: (1) I'm intrigued by biologist Rupert Sheldrake's studies that seem to support his theory of morphogenetic fields around crystals and living systems. (2) Science has a very poor understanding of the cause and nature of consciousness (life).and therefore can't solve the age-old mind/body problem. I wonder if unknown laws of consciousness (life) are essential to the explanation of how even alleged irreducibly complex systems and molecular "machines" can evolve with the help of random selection and genetic mutation. I'd welcome any constructive engagement that might help me advance my inquiry.

If you like Ken Miller you should read the book in my signature link. It answers these questions for you about the bacterial flagellum and other things.

 

[sayak83]

The theory of evolution is foundational to modern scientific disciplines and thus needs to be taught for its heuristic value. Intelligent Design advocates need to admit that they lack a comprehensive alternative theory to offer the education system. This deficiency leaves them with the implausible "God of the gaps:" I. e. the view that natural selection and genetic mutation produce increased complexity and adaptability over time, until an irreducibly complex leap (e. g. the flagellum) is needed, forcing God to step in with a special act of creation. That view is not only implausible; it transforms evolution into a theory that becomes increasingly unfalsifiable even in principle. So if an Intelligent Designer is needed, that Designer surely builds the future potential for otherwise irreducibly complex systems like the flagellum into the outflow of matter/ energy right from the Big Bang. That, I believe, is the position implicit in Miller's theology (though I love to learn if he agrees).

I guess I continue to have a twofold major quibble: (1) The analogy of an outboard motor does seem apt for the flagellum "machine;" and so it does seem irreducibly complex like Behe's mousetrap analogy suggests. The scientific response to Behe seems to involve the alleged "cannibalization" of parts from other molecular "machines," parts that seem structurally similar to their corresponding flagellum part. But what is hard for me to swallow is the claim that random selection and genetuc mutation can "reengineer" the flagellum by incorporating these parts. For this to happen, each gradual mutation would seem to need some adaptive function and that new function does not seem to have been demonstrated. So I don't think Behe's mousetrap analogy commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

What then might account for the formation of irreducibly complex molecular "machines?" I'm a historian and , as such, must confess that I'm not current on the latest attempts in scientific journals to refute Behe. So I'm left with 2 other possibililties: (1) I'm intrigued by biologist Rupert Sheldrake's studies that seem to support his theory of morphogenetic fields around crystals and living systems. I'd appreciate any scientific assessment of this Sheldrake video in which he lays out this theory and the research invoked in its support:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...CF4DE2FE49720626754ACF4DE2FE4972062&FORM=VIRE

(2) Science has a very poor understanding of the cause and nature of consciousness (life).and therefore can't solve the age-old mind/body problem. I wonder if unknown laws of consciousness (life) are essential to the explanation of how even alleged irreducibly complex systems and molecular "machines" can evolve with the help of random selection and genetic mutation. I'd welcome any constructive engagement that might help me advance my inquiry.

Your question leads one directly to the question of developmental biology. A new organism is being assembled in accordance with the sequential activation of the genes, how does genetic and epigenetic changes affect that development such that new organs can arise or old organs can get modified in new ways. I am not very familiar with how its tackled for unicellular organisms, but Neil Shubin provides a nice overview as to how new organs are formed by cannibalizing old ones (in this case the gill arches of fishes into ear bones of land mammals) and how embroyology gives one insight as to how the process occurred through evolution through genetic mutations.

 

[Berserk]

I want to thank Fantome and Sayak for engaging my thread and I will be thinking about what they both said.

Discussions of the Bible vs. evolution usually focus on the Genesis creation story, bur neglect the biblical passage (Proverbs 8:22-23, 30-31) that, for me, expresses the principles of greatest relevance for this comparison: In my view, Proverbs 8 provides the closest biblical mandate for the evolutionary principles of random selection and genetic mutation. I quote this poetic speech by Lady Wisdom from the New Jerusalem translation:

22.'Yahweh created me [Lady Wisdom], first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.
23. From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being...
30.I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,
31.at play everywhere on his earth, delighting to be with the children of men.

The earliest reference to the Trinity (Greek: trias) can be found in Theophilus bishop of Antioch's Ad Autolycum--180 AD) and contains the triad Father, Word (= Christ), and Wisdom (Sophia), not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Jewish Wisdom literature, Wisdom (Hebrew: hochmah: Greek: Sophia) is personified and often speaks as if She is an entity separate from God. But this is illusory because the Jews embrace monotheism. So why do they find it expedient to speak of Wisdom as if She is a distinct entity? Because Wisdom expresses the laws of creation that were established at the dawn of creation and operate independently of intervening divine fiat! Thus Wisdom declares that God created Her before the universe and that She, or rather her laws, were then "firmly fixed" (8:22-23) or established. Thus the biblical concept of Lady Wisdom overlaps with our modern poetic concept of Mother Nature.

So what is Wisdom's (= Mother Nature's) role as partner to the "Master Craftsman" or Architect? Wisdom's role is to support God not through purposive "work," but through divine "play (8:30-31)." This image allows for seemingly random nonpurposive process that, though playful or experimental, leads to a grand ordered result. Thus, the Bible sows poetic seeds for the evolutionary principle of random selection. As might be expected, then, Jewish Wisdom literature assigns a role to Chance in the course of life: "All are victims of time and chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11). I wish I could share this post with Kenneth Miller as a means of supplementing his dual identities as evolutionist and Roman Catholic.

 

[Altfish]

Miller's religious beliefs were one of the main reasons he was chosen as a key witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. (He's also a damned good biologist)

 

[Berserk]

Yes, of all the scientists I've heard lecture in person or online, Miller is the most skilled debater and best public speaker. I've watchcd the Nova reinactment of the Dover trial on DVD. The Discovery Institute did themselves a great PR disservice by bailing out of their roles as expert witnesses at this trial; aAnd some of the Christian school board members displayed a lack of integrity. So it was a dark day for evangelical Christianity. Yet I still think Behe's case for irreducible complexity is more compelling than Miller and his colleagues would have us believe. So some other variable, like the biological morphic fields postulated by Rupert Sheldrake, seems needed to bolster natural selection and genetic mutation over incredible long periods of time.

 

[viole]

The theory of evolution is foundational to modern scientific disciplines and thus needs to be taught for its heuristic value. Intelligent Design advocates need to admit that they lack a comprehensive alternative theory to offer the education system. This deficiency leaves them with the implausible "God of the gaps:" I. e. the view that natural selection and genetic mutation produce increased complexity and adaptability over time, until an irreducibly complex leap (e. g. the flagellum) is needed, forcing God to step in with a special act of creation. That view is not only implausible; it transforms evolution into a theory that becomes increasingly unfalsifiable even in principle. So if an Intelligent Designer is needed, that Designer surely builds the future potential for otherwise irreducibly complex systems like the flagellum into the outflow of matter/ energy right from the Big Bang. That, I believe, is the position implicit in Miller's theology (though I love to learn if he agrees).

I guess I continue to have a twofold major quibble: (1) The analogy of an outboard motor does seem apt for the flagellum "machine;" and so it does seem irreducibly complex like Behe's mousetrap analogy suggests. The scientific response to Behe seems to involve the alleged "cannibalization" of parts from other molecular "machines," parts that seem structurally similar to their corresponding flagellum part. But what is hard for me to swallow is the claim that random selection and genetuc mutation can "reengineer" the flagellum by incorporating these parts. For this to happen, each gradual mutation would seem to need some adaptive function and that new function does not seem to have been demonstrated. So I don't think Behe's mousetrap analogy commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

What then might account for the formation of irreducibly complex molecular "machines?" I'm a historian and , as such, must confess that I'm not current on the latest attempts in scientific journals to refute Behe. So I'm left with 2 other possibililties: (1) I'm intrigued by biologist Rupert Sheldrake's studies that seem to support his theory of morphogenetic fields around crystals and living systems. I'd appreciate any scientific assessment of this Sheldrake video in which he lays out this theory and the research invoked in its support:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...CF4DE2FE49720626754ACF4DE2FE4972062&FORM=VIRE

(2) Science has a very poor understanding of the cause and nature of consciousness (life).and therefore can't solve the age-old mind/body problem. I wonder if unknown laws of consciousness (life) are essential to the explanation of how even alleged irreducibly complex systems and molecular "machines" can evolve with the help of random selection and genetic mutation. I'd welcome any constructive engagement that might help me advance my inquiry.

The question is: who would create a bacterium with a flagellum and why. And why do we have legs? I tell you, I would love to look like an irreducible motorbike.

And why do we have to look so hard for alleged irreducible things? I would think it is odd to use natural evolution for complex things and cheat on bacteria.

For some reason God likes to give us evidence that naturalism is false, by creating things like that bacterium, while, at the same time, confusing us by creating the pinnacle of His creation in the shape and form of a close relative of a chimp.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

The question is: who would create a bacterium with a flagellum and why. And why do we have legs? I tell you, I would love to look like an irreducible motorbike.

For some reason God likes to give us evidence that naturalism is false, by creating things like that bacterium, while, at the same time, confusing us by creating the pinnacle of His creation in the shape of form of a close relative of a chimp.

Ciao

- viole

Probably just lazy. We didn't even get all the best parts. We can see such a tiny blip of the light spectrum, it's just pathetic. Mantis Shrimp are clearly God's chosen people.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, of all the scientists I've heard lecture in person or online, Miller is the most skilled debater and best public speaker. I've watchcd the Nova reinactment of the Dover trial on DVD. The Discovery Institute did themselves a great PR disservice by bailing out of their roles as expert witnesses at this trial; aAnd some of the Christian school board members displayed a lack of integrity. So it was a dark day for evangelical Christianity. Yet I still think Behe's case for irreducible complexity is more compelling than Miller and his colleagues would have us believe. So some other variable, like the biological morphic fields postulated by Rupert Sheldrake, seems needed to bolster natural selection and genetic mutation over incredible long periods of time.

There can be many many different types of mechanisms that work in evolution that may yet be discovered. I am open to anything and everything that has been well demonstrated by careful observation and testing. It has taken a 100 years of careful testing, observation, mathematical theory and philosophy (and is ongoing) to demonstrate the genuinely irreducible nature of entangled quantum states. It will take a lot of work to demonstrate a case of strong emergence in complex biological (and maybe neural) systems. The work by the ID people are not even in the ballpark to show something like this.

 

[gnostic]

There can be many many different types of mechanisms that work in evolution that may yet be discovered. I am open to anything and everything that has been well demonstrated by careful observation and testing. It has taken a 100 years of careful testing, observation, mathematical theory and philosophy (and is ongoing) to demonstrate the genuinely irreducible nature of entangled quantum states. It will take a lot of work to demonstrate a case of strong emergence in complex biological (and maybe neural) systems.

Ditto

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, of all the scientists I've heard lecture in person or online, Miller is the most skilled debater and best public speaker. I've watchcd the Nova reinactment of the Dover trial on DVD. The Discovery Institute did themselves a great PR disservice by bailing out of their roles as expert witnesses at this trial; aAnd some of the Christian school board members displayed a lack of integrity. So it was a dark day for evangelical Christianity. Yet I still think Behe's case for irreducible complexity is more compelling than Miller and his colleagues would have us believe. So some other variable, like the biological morphic fields postulated by Rupert Sheldrake, seems needed to bolster natural selection and genetic mutation over incredible long periods of time.

The DI affiliated witnesses pulled out because they knew that they were not just going to lose, but that they were going to get the crap kicked of them. They chose to turn tail and run rather than lose really ugly. So much for faith,.