Truth or Dare with Dr. Ken Miller A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller Version 1.2. Copyright © Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, 2010. Permission Granted to Copy and Distribute for Educational Use. Introduction to believe whatever he wishes; there is “the random, undirected processes Brown University biologist Dr. no need nor desire to question his of mutation and natural selection” Kenneth Miller is the kind of person personal faith. What we do seek, (p. 145) you naturally want to believe. He has a however, are straight answers from "Evolution is a natural process, and charismatic personality and a fast- Dr. Miller about inconsistencies in his natural processes are undirected" paced, upbeat, and energetic lecture evolving statements on this topic. (p. 244) style. On top of all that, he umpires Five editions of Miller’s textbook, softball, rides horses, and is Biology, stated that “evolution works A. Truth or Dare: How can Dr. Miller undoubtedly an all-around nice guy. If without either plan or purpose … blame the “evolution works without you’re in college, Dr. Miller makes you Evolution is random and undirected.”2 either plan or purpose … Evolution is wish you’d taken him for introductory At the Dover trial, Dr. Miller admitted random and undirected” language on biology rather than the boring prof on cross-examination that this his co-author Levine when his own book you probably were stuck with. If description “requires a conclusion contains nearly identical language? you’re out of college, he might even about meaning and purpose that I More importantly, how does Miller make you fondly recall undergraduate think is beyond the realm of science.”3 reconcile the view that evolution is courses when learning from a capable Why did this language appear in “random,” “blind,” “undirected” and professor engaged your mind. his book? When pressed, Miller has “works without either plan or purpose” While these qualities make for an offered two suspect explanations: He with traditional theism? Is Dr. Miller an enjoyable lecture, they have no testified he “immediately took it out of open theist, where he believes God isn’t bearing on whether or not the the book”4 after the third edition, even truly omniscient or omnipotent and arguments and assertions of Dr. Miller though the language actually remained cannot know the outcome of evolution? are factually correct and true. Those for all five editions.2 Dr. Miller may Dr. Miller has every right to believe as familiar with Dr. Miller know that he legitimately blame this mistake on a he wishes, but if this is his view, does it regularly uses the same arguments memory lapse, but there is more. place him within Catholic orthodoxy? against intelligent design (ID) when he Dr. Miller also tried to blame this Finally, both the 1991 and 1994 lectures, and unfortunately, his language on his co-author, Joseph editions of Miller & Levine’s Biology: arguments are not only weak, but they Levine, stating that “this was a The Living Science textbook left 4 are rife with misrepresentations of ID. statement that Joe inserted.” This readers with a striking passage on the Dr. Miller has been informed may sound plausible, until we read in purported implications of Darwinism: about many of these errors before, Miller’s own book Finding Darwin’s “Darwin knew that accepting his which makes it unfortunate that he God (no co-author to blame there) uses theory required believing in continues to promote them. The identical language to describe neo- philosophical materialism, the purpose of this Guide is to help you Darwinian evolution: conviction that matter is the stuff of all understand, navigate, and critically “random, undirected process of existence and that all mental and evaluate common claims in anti-ID mutation had produced the ‘right’ spiritual phenomena are its by- lectures by Ken Miller. Whatever kind of variation for natural products. Darwinian evolution was opinion you come to hold, don’t let selection to act upon” (p. 51) not only purposeless but also yourself be hoodwinked: check the “a random, undirected process like heartless--a process in which the facts for yourself and dare Dr. Miller to evolution” (p. 102) rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate tell the truth about intelligent design. “blind, random, undirected the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was evolution [could] have produced reduced to just one more species in a I. Science and Religion: Is Evolution such an intricate set of structures world that cared nothing for us. The “Random and Undirected”? and organs, so brilliantly dedicated great human mind was no more than a Ken Miller styles himself as a to a single purpose” (p. 137) mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, Catholic theistic evolutionist, leading there was no divine plan to guide us.”5 one critic to observe that he is Ask Dr. Miller to explain this one too. sometimes presented as if any potential conflicts between evolution pbsevolution/pbsgilder072601.htm 2 Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology and religion are “reconciled, as it were, (1st ed., 1991), p. 658; (2nd ed., 1993), p. in his person.”1 Dr. Miller has the right 658; (3rd ed., 1995), p. 658; (4th ed., 1998), p. 658; (5th ed. 2000), p. 658. For details, see www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ 5 Joseph Levine & Kenneth Miller, Biology: 1 Josh Gilder, “There is no religious bias in the ken_millers_random_and_undirec.html Discovering Life (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says 3 Day 2 AM Testimony, p. 4. 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed. D.C. Heath and Co., there isn’t,” at www.arn.org/docs/ 4 Day 2 AM Testimony, p. 7. 1994), p. 161. Emphasis in original. II. Misrepresenting the Definition of context we would immediately “design theorists recognize that the Intelligent Design recognize such systems as the product nature, moral character and purposes At the Dover trial, Ken Miller of very intelligent engineering. of this intelligence lie beyond the asserted under oath that intelligent Although some may argue this is a competence of science and must be left design is merely “a negative argument merely an argument from ignorance, to religion and philosophy,"12 and against evolution” which requires an we regard it as an inference to the best explains with Jonathan Wells that appeal to the supernatural: “It is what explanation, given what we know “[e]xplanations that call on intelligent a philosopher might call the argument about the powers of intelligent as causes require no miracles but cannot from ignorance, which is to say that, opposed to strictly natural or material be reduced to materialistic because we don't understand causes.”9 explanations.”13 Similarly Michael something, we assume we never will, ID is thus not merely a negative Behe writes that “as regards the and therefore we can invoke a cause argument against evolution but is identity of the designer, modern ID outside of nature, a supernatural based upon finding in nature the types theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's creator or supernatural designer.”6 Dr. of complexity which in our experience phrase hypothesis non fingo [to make Miller even stated this holds true in all derive from intelligent causes. no hypothesis].”14 cases: “The evidence is always Stephen Meyer makes this point clear The reasons why ID merely negative, and it basically says, if in a scientific paper published in appeals to intelligence and not to the evolution is incorrect, the answer must Proceedings of the Biological Society of “supernatural” are principled rather be design.”6 These are outright Washington: “Our experience-based than rhetorical. As explained earlier, misrepresentations of ID made by Dr. knowledge of information-flow we have observation-based experience Miller, and it’s likely you’ll hear these confirms that systems with large with intelligence showing us that same mistakes at any anti-ID lectures amounts of specified complexity intelligence is the cause of high CSI. from Dr. Miller that you attend. (especially codes and languages) This allows us to scientifically detect The Positive Argument for Design: invariably originate from an intelligent intelligent causation when we find CSI At the Dover trial, ID proponents were source from a mind or personal in nature. But we have no extremely clear that ID is not merely a agent.”10 This specified complexity, observation-based experience with the negative argument against evolution also called complex and specified supernatural, and thus a scientific but uses a strong positive argument. information (CSI), is a tell-tale investigation which detects high CSI in Michael Behe refuted Miller’s indicator that intelligence was at work. nature can infer intelligent causation, testimony by stating: “This argument Meyer explains why this makes for a but such a scientific investigation for design is an entirely positive positive—not negative—argument for could not go so far as to specify that argument. This is how we recognize design: “by invoking design to explain the intelligence is supernatural. ID is design by the purposeful arrangement the origin of new biological thus a positive argument that, contrary of parts.”7 Behe also made this clear in information, contemporary design to Miller’s words, does not merely the afterward to Darwin’s Black Box: theorists are not positing an arbitrary argue that “if evolution is incorrect, “[I]rreducibly complex systems such explanatory element unmotivated by a the answer must be design.”6 In as mousetraps and flagella serve both consideration of the evidence. Instead, contrast, ID uses a positive argument as negative arguments against they are positing an entity possessing and respects the boundaries of gradualistic explanations like Darwin’s precisely the attributes and causal science: it merely appeals to and as positive arguments for design.