Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WinAce · 11-02-2002, 06:13 PM

Quote:

<a href="http://aig.smartbusiness.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp" target="_blank">Miller's Mangled Arguments</a>

Kenneth Miller is an ardent evolutionist and anti-creationist. He has a long history of debating scientific creationists,1 and is credited with being a crafty debater. One of his techniques is known as ‘spread debating’, i.e. reeling off a series of arguments (many of them straw men) in rapid succession that can’t all be refuted in the time available, leaving the na�ve in the audience with the impression that the creationist can’t answer them all.

Quote:

Before proceeding with this book, the reader is cautioned that some of its material is of questionable factual accuracy. For instance, Henry M. Morris points out that Miller has misrepresented the statements of creationists in general and of Morris in particular. If so, then this is nothing new. Miller appears to have a long history of, let’s say this diplomatically, embellishing the truth.

Quote:

Another straw man is Miller’s claim that creationists believe in a God ‘who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves’ (p. 80). Of course, when the likes of Miller reject God’s propositional revelation in Scripture, they are misleading themselves.

Quote:

Nevertheless, as is typical of books of this genre, Miller mis-characterizes scientific creationists.

My irony meter has just blown every last fuse it had. Do these people even read the stuff that comes out of their keyboards??

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

And here's some more rank stupidity from that article:

Quote:

This, to us, is as silly as those humanists who tell us that either we remove all traces of Christianity from public life, or else we will soon have a theocracy where members of minority religions are all slaughtered.

Quote:

Miller rejects the notion that evolution has anything to do with such things as murder, war, adultery, etc., and points out that such things are found in the Old Testament, long before publication of the Origin of Species. Yes, but what Miller fails to appreciate is the fact that while such things as adultery have always existed, they were never affirmed as something positive, or possibly morally neutral, at least by learned people, until the development of modern evolutionary theory. Thus, for instance, we have modern evolutionists teaching us, in dead seriousness, that adultery can be something good because it provides a woman the opportunity to have the best genes for her offspring, thus enhancing the ‘survival of the fittest’. Evolutionists have also commonly stated that sexual promiscuity is beneficial because it enhances the phenotypic genetic diversity within a population of living things.

Quote:

Miller completely misses the mark when he vainly tries to deflect criticism of the cruelty of evolution by citing ‘Biblical cruelties’ such as God’s burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the slaughter of the firstborns in ancient Egypt (p. 246). Surely, as a self-identified Roman Catholic, Miller should know some Catholic theology and recognize the fact that God’s punitive actions were never spontaneous, but always as a response to egregious human sin.

Quote:

Apart from being un-Biblical, Miller’s reasoning fails once closely examined. To begin with, how is the theist supposed to know that God is behind such things as the consequences of a rapidly-moving bullet? Miller might respond that it is his faith in God, but what he is engaging in is a ‘leap in the dark’, which is fatalism, and not true faith. In actuality, recognition of the truth of God’s revelation (the Bible) is the only way that the theist can know, and have true faith in, the fact that God regulates such things as the courses of rapidly-moving bullets.

Quote:

Throughout most of the book, Miller appears to maintain a compartmentalized view of reality. That way, he can simultaneously maintain his Roman Catholic faith, which of course assumes the existence of an intervening God, and at the same time accept organic evolution which rejects an intervening God.

Quote:

It should be a lesson that many atheistic reviewers have sung the praises of Miller’s book, but we have yet to see any reconsider their atheism! So it seems that they love it for its supposedly effective rebuttal of creation, and probably think of Miller much as Lenin used to cultivate ‘useful idiots’ in the West—people who were too na�ve to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. Conversely, as already noted with Antony Flew, many atheists have more respect for those who are consistent in their beliefs.

Pitshade · 11-02-2002, 08:11 PM

Wouldn't this be better off in Evo/Creation?

Hmmm...

WinAce · 11-02-2002, 08:44 PM

Ummm.... Well... Err...

I posted it in RRP because it was of the "my, what brain-dead fundies we have here, grandma" variety--not something that actually needed refuting. Sorta like the "10 Logical Fallacies Made by Muslims" from Chick.com.

Oh well, now that it's here... discuss. Are the bozos at AiG purposefully obtuse, or can they actually miss the irony a cursory review of the aforementioned article reveals?

Nickle · 11-02-2002, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Throughout most of the book, Miller appears to maintain a compartmentalized view of reality. That way, he can simultaneously maintain his Roman Catholic faith, which of course assumes the existence of an intervening God, and at the same time accept organic evolution which rejects an intervening God.

I actually somewhat agree with him on this, though I end up with an opposite conclusion.

Bubba · 11-03-2002, 03:43 AM

This actually brings up an interesting question about psychology more than evolution. Since Ken Millers book pretty much destroys YEC and since AIG provides no scientific evidence against Miller we have to assume the writers from AIG are either 1. lieing to themselves, 2. lieing to us, or both.

Anybody read anything serious on the psychology of self deception?

Wouldn't the same kind of mindless self deception explain why people believe people like Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Kenneth Hagin?

We've hashed out a lot of other evolutionary issues here but never delved into just what would cause a person to lie to themselves to the point where there no longer in touch with reality.

Thoughts anyone?

Bubba <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Camaban · 11-03-2002, 03:49 AM

Quote:

We've hashed out a lot of other evolutionary issues here but never delved into just what would cause a person to lie to themselves to the point where there no longer in touch with reality.

As I said in that misquote thread. I'd love to see what goes on in their minds.

I'm not a trekkie, but I think Klingons would be the best way to describe them.

TerryTryon · 11-03-2002, 05:11 AM

The vast majority neither have the time nor the mental energy to properly research the evolution/creation issue. As long as the controversy rages, they figure the evidence is 50/50 and that they can safely take sides without any investigation at all.

At least that's the feeling I get when I discuss evolution with the noncommittal creationist, "Well, there's plenty of evidence on both sides." "Evolutionists have the same problem."

So, what's better than the "I'm rubber and your glue" defence when all their arguments crash. The truth is that creationism is a political position, so its main objective is persuasion and its main tool is rhetoric. The evidence or logic of a proposition is not even considered except in the light of the perceived intellectual stature of the target audience.

ps418 · 11-03-2002, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Thus, for instance, we have modern evolutionists teaching us, in dead seriousness, that adultery can be something good because it provides a woman the opportunity to have the best genes for her offspring, thus enhancing the �survival of the fittest�. Evolutionists have also commonly stated that sexual promiscuity is beneficial because it enhances the phenotypic genetic diversity within a population of living things.

A clear-cut naturalistic fallacy. This rests on a (very common) confusion between what is 'beneficial' or 'good' in an evolutionary sense [i.e. that which increases representation of one's genes in the next generation] with what is morally good. These are two completely different things. If you think that increasing the representation of your genes in the next generation is the highest and sole moral good, then yes, adultery and promiscuous behavior are arguably moral imperatives. However, I don't actually know any evolutionist (anyone for that matter) who judges fecundity itself to be the highest moral good.

Clutch · 11-03-2002, 08:14 AM

I love the use of "for instance" here. It's such a perfect insight into the creationist conception of evidence.

Quote:

some of its material is of questionable factual accuracy. For instance, Henry M. Morris points out that Miller has misrepresented the statements of creationists in general and of Morris in particular. If so, then this is nothing new. Miller appears to have a long history of, let�s say this diplomatically, embellishing the truth.

In other words:

The book contains factual errors. To take one concrete example: Henry Morris says it does. And so do we, for that matter. QED.

Another victory for creationist reasoning!

Bubba · 11-03-2002, 09:58 AM

Clutch, it's funny how Miller is an actual praticing scientist dealing with evolution every day and yet he's accused of "embelishing the truth."

Funny how AIG didn't give any evidence for his embellishments either...

Bubba <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-02-2002, 08:11 PM	#2
Pitshade Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Sugar Grove,NC Posts: 4,316	Wouldn't this be better off in Evo/Creation? Hmmm...

11-02-2002, 08:44 PM	#3
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Ummm.... Well... Err... I posted it in RRP because it was of the "my, what brain-dead fundies we have here, grandma" variety--not something that actually needed refuting. Sorta like the "10 Logical Fallacies Made by Muslims" from Chick.com. Oh well, now that it's here... discuss. Are the bozos at AiG purposefully obtuse, or can they actually miss the irony a cursory review of the aforementioned article reveals?

11-03-2002, 03:43 AM	#5
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	This actually brings up an interesting question about psychology more than evolution. Since Ken Millers book pretty much destroys YEC and since AIG provides no scientific evidence against Miller we have to assume the writers from AIG are either 1. lieing to themselves, 2. lieing to us, or both. Anybody read anything serious on the psychology of self deception? Wouldn't the same kind of mindless self deception explain why people believe people like Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and Kenneth Hagin? We've hashed out a lot of other evolutionary issues here but never delved into just what would cause a person to lie to themselves to the point where there no longer in touch with reality. Thoughts anyone? Bubba <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

11-03-2002, 05:11 AM	#7
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	The vast majority neither have the time nor the mental energy to properly research the evolution/creation issue. As long as the controversy rages, they figure the evidence is 50/50 and that they can safely take sides without any investigation at all. At least that's the feeling I get when I discuss evolution with the noncommittal creationist, "Well, there's plenty of evidence on both sides." "Evolutionists have the same problem." So, what's better than the "I'm rubber and your glue" defence when all their arguments crash. The truth is that creationism is a political position, so its main objective is persuasion and its main tool is rhetoric. The evidence or logic of a proposition is not even considered except in the light of the perceived intellectual stature of the target audience.

11-03-2002, 09:58 AM	#10
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Clutch, it's funny how Miller is an actual praticing scientist dealing with evolution every day and yet he's accused of "embelishing the truth." Funny how AIG didn't give any evidence for his embellishments either... Bubba <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.