How can anyone hold to Intelligent Design after reading this?

Question

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

Its a short article by Ken Miller, Professor of Biology. Prof. Miller takes the arguments of Intelligent Design and then takes them apart. There is nothing left! Nothing! "Irreducible Complexity" is just not there.

Jim R -

I am not accepting his pronouncements based on his authority. I am, having read them, accepting his arguments. You put forward none.

Answer 1

As a creationist, I personally do not use irreducible complexity as a mainstay or as proof of design. But since you mentioned this article, most of his proof is still in the Hypothesis stage and he admits in his article no actual proof has been found, just that they have figured out how it could have worked. That is a long way from proving how it did work. Anyone can make a hypothesis to fit any condition or question. To say that evolution can also do these functions through slow and pain staking natural selection, you would have to show me a case of beneficial mutation. Very rare. Also his example of a mousetrap can still function with one part missing, only if a person or designer reworks it or its parts. It is funny how you want intelligent design to PROVE their theory but evolutionist do not have to.

Answer 2

I'll answer this, even though I'm not sure how it made its way into the religion section.

Miller fails in that argument to provide any real evidence against intelligent design, so for someone to hold it after reading that article would be pretty much the same as them holding the view before reading it. What his argument is states that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. However, he only is dealing with things on a cellular level, there are many assumptions he is claiming based off of his findings.

Also, he makes inappropriate statements about the claims of irreducible complexity in the scientific realm, such as claiming the secondary conclusion that it means there MUST be intelligent design. That isn't part of irreducible complexity at all. I would say that his findings are interesting, but not really anything of significant merit for the case of evolution. If irreducible complexity was the only problem evolution encountered, it would be doing pretty well.

Answer 3

I hate to tell you this but all Professor Miller does is break down Behe's seriously flawed Irreducible Complexity argument.

A simpler way to show how discredited Behe is would be to quote him...

In 1996 Behe used the immune system as an example of Irreducible Complexity and claimed science would NEVER find an evolutionary explanation. He was presented with 58 peer-reviewed papers, nine books and several chapters of text books on this very subject. His response was that these were not 'good enough' evidence.

Under cross-examination in court he then admitted that he had not read the majority of the peer-reviewed publications.

That someone can comment on the quality of the science of something he hasn't read is ridiculous. That Behe is still the most prominent and reputable scientist supporting Intelligent Design is both scary and hilarious.

Answer 4

One argument among many is no case against intelligent design or an Intelligent Designer.

Irreducible complexity in itself cannot successfully be argued against if design and purposeful function are apparent. Mr. Miller has simply shared his opinion and opened up his reasoning to the view of others. This does not make his words fact. If one is going to defend Darwin's views, that person should include some of his statements acknowledging the absurdity of the evolutionary theory.

Here are some words from Charles Darwin for you to consider.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species
1909 Harvard Classics Edition p. 190

By natural selection is meant - simply out of thin air; from nothing

In other words the eye being formed by natural selection is in other words an eye that formed itself. Is this logic and reasoning ?

Come on now, friends.

Samel F.B. Morse is the inventor of the morse code

but

Time + chance is the inventor of the DNA code ?????

This is not science. An explosion of nothing caused by nothing billions of years ago = life ???

Mindless, non-lving matter turns itself into intelligent, functioning, living matter. And you wonder why Christians don't accept this so called science ?

Show N Tell

Answer 5

He doesn't argue against all of intelligent design. He argues against one instance of Irreducible Complexity. This apophenia people experience to "scientifically" explain their views as fact when there evidence for both is inconclusive is bizarre. Evolution as a theory is sound, but incomplete. Even if it's true as we know it now (although I find it unlikely that we've learned everything there is to know on the subject); it will take thousands, if not millions, of years to prove conclusively. The same is true for creationism. I understand the religious fervor of creationists, but the zealousness of evolutionists (who by rights should remain coldly objective) is ridiculous. As Dr. Miller points out in the beginning paragraphs of his article, everything in science is questionable.

Answer 6

Intelligent Design (ID) is crap ! As is Creationism. People who believe such rubbish are sadly in need of some scientific education in biology, logic, and astronomy (that's not astrology as some ill- educated people think). Religion poisons everything by proposing such ridiculous stuff as ID and Creationism. Any serious reading as above will show that they are impossible.

Answer 7

In the first case, this article is NOT short, and it appears that many of the 35 previous answers were offered without having read the article critically (or at all). Many people hold a bias by ignoring the argument, but attacking or defending the principles. This demonstrates a bias which typically seems to side with "science," or better said, with Darwin.

People hold to Intelligent Design by either ignoring the article, or by having other issues beyond the "irreducible complexity" issue upon which this article solely focuses. I find it funny that the author can disprove the claim on the issue (and not the issue itself) and hold that disproof as a solid rebuttal of not just the issue in question, but also of all of Intelligent Design. I still see issues unaddressed in the "irreducible complexity" argument remaining unaddressed, for instance in the mechanisms by which these parts can come together at the correct stages of "development" in the proper setting to fulfill the proper purpose in an evolutionary manner has yet to be addressed.

One thing I find of great interest is the idea that most people translate Intelligent Design to mean Intelligent Designed, as if all design occurred "In the beginning," and that it ceased after "all things were created." I allow for the possibility that not only could there exist a Creator who is STILL creating, but that this Creator is using natural mechnisms to do so. This kind of idea is novel enough, that I'd bet that no person is investigating it either from the scientific community or from the ID community. Yet both ID and evolution cannot escape the possibility without ignoring the gaping holes that it creates in many of their foundational principles. If I were that Creator, I certainly would not retire from my creative work after six days of work (or ever, really), nor would I create everything from scratch (the hard way of doing things). To the creationists, no, the creative work was not perfect, because it has fallen prone to death and disease, thus Creation must continue. I would create machines to create other machines, and pretty much try to automate my creative genius. Otherwise, I would be consummed with far too many details and administrative decisions. Automation is the way to go for any efficient, intelligent design. But perhaps I have to take a very clear position and state the obvious: This is only a hypothesis, which opens a great many previously closed doors for the need of objective, unbiased investigation.

Nevertheless, I see great scientific evidence against evolution, much of which comes from the one area where science and spirituality unavoidably and inevitably mix: the social sciences. The idea of evolution is that nature selects those things which improve survivability, but in the human mind we see things developing which decrease survivability, even self-destructive mechanisms. But Darwinians, point to the fact that humans still exist and are surviving as their proof, and I imagine that we may lack the experimental evidence until we lack the humanity required to examine the evidence of this progression towards self-destruction. The idea being that humans are free to choose activities which harm their survival, and they tend to engage in those activities with greater frequency and intensity as they develop mentally, most notably: the decrease in reproduction, genocide/war, homocide, suicide, and psychological diseases/breakdowns/problems, to name a few.

In conclusion, the object of a theory is not to explain something and then seek the proofs later, as evolution has done and continues to do, but to first seek the proofs, and then FORM THE THEORIES FROM ABUNDANT, SPECIFIC EVIDENCES. When a "theory" explains a thing before the specific proofs validate it IN EVERY DETAIL IRREFUTABLY, we scientists have been taught to call such claims, "hypothesis." The claim that it has not been disproven and that survival proves the survivability claim are irrelevant to the definition of a theory, in science. The theory is established from a complete and irrefutable set of evidences, while the hypothesis is formed from a solid idea based on several strong evidences in its support (an educated guess). Darwin's idea falls in the latter category, and perhaps with time (but certainly NOT now) may be established with sufficiently complete and abundant evidences in the future.

Schools should teach The Hypothesis of Darwin, but to deny Intelligent Design from the curriculum is to establish that there exists certain classes of knowledge which are neither to be explored nor to be given objective consideration. I do not believe in making any class of knowledge taboo, despite the active political campaigns of many Darwinians against ID. I see strong possibilities for truth in both "camps" (perhaps even simultaneously) and would feel great injustice in denying consideration of either in our schools.

Answer 8

I believe in creation, but I am not in the "Intelligent Design" camp. Some of what they say is weak and unsatisfying.

Ultimately, the only way to prove right now whether God exists or not is to be spiritually hungry, to humbly and persistently ask him to reveal himself in some way. Then, seriously review all potential sources of evidence with an open mind, no mater where they come from. He is not going to reveal himself to people who are not spiritually humble and choose to believe in anything but creation.

My belief in God is based on scriptural knowledge, personal experience and the fact that I can ask him for anything that is in accord with his will and get it by the bucket load. He invites us to test him out to see if he really does exist and if he really is an almight God.

However, here are a couple of "worst case scenarios":

1) I believe in a creator, but he does not exist.

If this is true, then the worst thing that can happen is that, when this fallacy is exposed, my pride will be severely hurt. Essentially, though, I will be in the same boat as everyobody else. I will live my short life as best as I can and then die, just like evolutionists, whose only benefit will be that they will die a little bit smugger than me. (I don't mean that to be sarcastic, smugness is a natural feeling we can feel ok about when we're proved right, though of course, in small doses)

2) I believe in evolution, but God exists and has a specific plan which he will put into action in his own due time.

If this is true, I will lose out completely. The prospect of living for ever in the home that he made for us would be lost to me.

I would potentially lose more if I chose not to believe in God if he exists than if I chose to believe in a non-existent God. I know that this is no argument, but I have a feeling that no argument is complete enough to win over the hearts and minds of people with opposing views.

One day soon, we will find out which is true - evolution or creation.

If evolution is true, then there is no all-powerful God watching over us to see that we don't destroy ourseves with war or polution, or that we don't get destroyed by a natural terrestrial or extra terrestrial disaster. At the moment, there is more of a guarantee that one of these disasters will destroy us than that we are safe without God.

If creation is true, then God will step in before we destroy ourselves. He cares about the things he made, just as we would care about something that we made that was not being treated with respect. By this time, we will all know that God exists, but for those who choose not to believe in him or not to worship him in the right way, it will be too late.

Answer 9

How intelligent is it to debate the origins of life over and over again? It only serves to keep academics in work and for the rest it has no practical application.
Humanity on the whole has no intelligence. The destruction of planet Earth is living proof of that. And the fact that planet Earth will eventually recover without science or technology just goes to show how idiotic humanity really is.

Answer 10

There is no such thing as intelligent design, it is just another word for creationism, how so called intelligent people can even think of such rot is beyond me but then nearly every proponent of Creationism, Creation science (that's a joke ) and intelligent design are American right wing lunatics so the bit about intelligent people is a misnomer.