Ken Miller on Intelligent Design, Jan. 6, 2006, at a school in Ohio.
This school in Ohio at which Kenneth Miller delivered the two-hour lecture on Jan. 6, 2006 was facing a very similar situation as the school in Dover, PA had just survived a few months earlier. The Question and Answer (Q&A) period takes up about a third of the video. The main part of the lecture could be the same at both places but I'm sure the Q&A is not. All the students, staff, parents, private citizens, faculty, or anyone else, who spoke or responded in any way throughout the entire evening was in favour of evolution. Throughout the speech there was spontaneous clapping and cheering. At first, Miller was quite taken by surprise and it was obvious that he barely had time for all of this. However, by the end of the Q&A it was clear to me--and also to him--what was behind it.
INTRODUCTIONPeople were intensely worried about the situation. A critical meeting was coming up "next Tuesday." As I think about this, I am impressed with how differently these liberal people showed their intense concern from the way fundamentalist religionists show their worries about the perceived degeneration of culture. These people did not exaggerate their worries with long doleful speeches, but they clapped every time Miller touched on a deep concern of theirs. During the Q&A the specific issues of their situation, and the significance of their clapping, became much clearer. Teachers were worried about being forced to choose between teaching lies and giving up their jobs. Parents were worried about subjecting their children to lies instead of a solid education. The community was worried about social regression in general, which would have serious long term effects on all levels of society.
At this point in the story the focus is on prevention. A few issues of central concern regarding the up-coming meeting and the local situation were addressed by community members who had information. It was obvious that Miller had been asked to speak because they needed help and advice from him as a person who had just come through a similar situation, and also because he has professional expertise in the academic field under attack. Not all scientists are willing to speak to a general audience; he is.
When asked what it was like being cross-questioned as expert witness at the trial, he responded very candidly. He knew he was speaking to people who might find themselves in the same situation in the near future. When asked how to find a good judge, he did the same. At the end, he told them in the heart-to-heart way that all Christians understand that he prays things will go well for them.
The evening had been opened with prayer. During the speech Miller shared that he had been raised Roman Catholic and that he had raised his two daughters Catholic, too, but he had also made sure that they got a good education. In response to a question about science and religion, he talked about surveys done over the past century. In about 1918, and again in about 1999, surveys were done that showed about 40% of scientists were religious. As a Christian, he explained science as being a "way to learn about the natural world." He explained that for some people there is no room in there for God but for him there is. His use of the term "natural world" suggests to me that for him reality consists of two realms: the natural and the supernatural.
I would have liked for him to explain how he justified belief in the supernatural. However, since he was speaking to religious people, he was not asked that question. A few of the students, who looked like Arabs and had a heavy Arabic accent, may have been Muslim so I am not sure that all of the audience were Christian but I assume all were religious. I took a few notes that I will copy--and maybe comment--below.
BOOKSMiller talked about a few books, his own and others':
Miller, Kenneth R.
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. In this book he was looking at evolution and religion. It is available on
Amazon.
Wells, Jonathan.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong. This is from the "other side," and struck me as a good book to read if one wanted to learn more about evangelical beliefs on evolution. It is available on
Amazon.
He also talked about
Discovery Institute's Source Books of Intelligent Design. I did not do an exhaustive search of their website but I could not find these books in the obvious places. I suspect they might have changed their curriculum or titles by now; they have a history of doing this when the authorities catch up to them. This lecture was given three years ago.
STEPS OF "MAKING SCIENCE"During the lecture, Miller showed with a diagram the five steps required to "make science"--all the way from a "goofy" new idea to the classroom. The rest of this part is pretty much transliterated verbatim.
1.
Novel Scientific Claim2. backed up by solid
Research3. subjected to
Peer Review4. to win
Scientific Consensus5. and eventually, if the evidence is on the side of these ideas, no matter how goofy they sound at first, and no matter how much the scientific community opposes them, they will find their way into
Classroom and TextbookHe says: Now Intelligent Design advocates like to say they’ve got a new scientific idea, too. And you know what? If they wanted to do this [rigorous steps of research and peer review, etc.], I’d be thrilled. I’d say see you at the cell biology meetings. See you at bio-chemistry. See you at the earth science meetings. We’ll have fun. We’ll argue about this and I’ll show you that you’re full of it but you know what? Maybe you’ll do the same to me. Maybe you’ll come up with the experiments, with the evidence, with the analysis that will show you’re right. And if you are right, in ten, fifteen, twenty years.…you will automatically be in classroom and textbook.
SOME TACTICS OF ID ADVOCATESNext Miller talks about Intelligent Design advocates and explains how they want to do things.
Direct Injection into Classroom & TextbookHe says they would like a direct injection into classroom and textbook. In the diagram, Miller removes the three steps between Novel Scientific Claim and Classroom & Textbook.
Obviously, that is not the way to learn about the natural world. He also shows in detail how they redefine what science is to allow for religious views without saying so. I did not take notes of that. I recommend people watch the video.
Closed-MindednessOne point Miller made about Intelligent Design advocates that helped me better understand them was that they "want to open science up to non-natural explanations." I guess that is what they mean when they accuse me of being "closed minded"--they think I have closed my mind to the possibility that their ideas work. The problem with that attitude is that they reach this conclusion without investigating what possibilities I personally have looked into.
When they use it against the scientific community in general, I think they overlook the historical fact that evolution theory grew out of a very strong biblical belief. To suggest that the scientific community has not considered non-natural explanations is ridiculous in the extreme. They need to read about Copernicus and Galileo for starters. And consider how the Christian Church treated them--AND WHY. Copernicus died a natural death at the age of 70, but others were executed or placed under life-long house arrest for building on his heliocentric theory. See
Capernicanism in Wikipedia. All these scientists were Christians.
Redefining TermsAnother tactic ID advocates use, according to Miller, is to rewrite the definition of science in the official state legislation or wherever this stands in writing. I understand from the conversation during Q&A that the public school board does this--maybe at the state level, I'm not sure.
Q&ADuring Q&A, Miller is invited to make a political speech and he declines. He says science is apolitical. I like that because I am liberal about a lot of things but when I read about politics, I find myself more comfortable with conservative values. His statement allows me to be liberal re religion and education but conservative re politics and/or economics.
Next step after ID is “critical analysis of evolution.”
Moderator says “Until the theological presuppositions that underlie the attacks on evolution are addressed—and they need to be addressed by churches, by clergy—that this anti-evolution movement simply is not going to go away, and there will keep on being new avatars of Intelligent Design/Creationism…whatever it’s called.”
Person who brings around the microphone says: It’s not critical and it’s not analysis. It’s an effort to convince students to uncritically swallow wholesale outright lies about ________ of science.
WATCH THE VIDEO!I would urge anyone to schedule a time to watch the video regardless which side you're on. It can't hurt for you to know the truth of the situation.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
