Jason Bock's Weblog - Recent Comments for "Recap of Ken Miller Talk"

Nice Review

Eric — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:36:01 GMT

It was good fun to talk with you last night Jason, both about programming and about the topic of last nights speech by Dr. Miller. I too enjoyed most of the talk, and I also think he is an EXCELLENT speaker and presenter. The bit at the end about the chapter of Genesis not being a science book sort of threw me though. I don't understand the sort of mental gymnastics required to treat one story in the bible (the creation of man, woman and all animals in their present day form) as an allegory and to treat another story (the death, resurrection and atonement of our sins by Jesus) as literal truth. I also had a number of other questions on Dr. Miller's interpretation of evolution and how it fit in with the concept of a creator or intelligent designer (he insists he is neither a Creationist nor an ID advocate).

- Is evolution predetermined or is it random? Did the creator "create" evolution knowing ahead of time that in roughly 4.5 billion years it would create present day man or is the creation of man somewhat of a surprise to the creator? (Hopefully it was a pleasant surprise, but after reading some of the OT chapters it sure does seem like God had quite a bit of fun smiting us for relatively minor infractions!).

- Is evolution a guided process? Does the creator intervene at times to add new subroutines or to tweak the values of runtime variables? Is this something that science can detect?

Both of those have numerous follow-up questions and some of them venture into philosophical debates that are probably outside the realm of scientific exploration.

On the way back to my car, I stopped back at the auditorium and bought the last 2 copies of his books that were for sale. They look like interesting reads and I'm hoping to get some answers to my questions.

I really want to come to the user group meeting on lexers and parses tonight (it's a subject I'm very interested in), but I promised I'd take my sister to the gym tonight in an effort to help her get in shape. Please let me know if the speaker recommends any websites or books on the topic.

I'd also love love love to hear a presentation on genetic programming in C#. It's another topic I'm interested in but have been too lazy to get started on by my own. Maybe attending a presentation or speech would be the spark I need?

Thanks again... I had an enjoyable evening last night!

Really Great

Blue Lizard — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:32:43 GMT

Wow- That was perhaps the most impressive review that I have read to-date. Very thorough indeed!

Mr

Tony Lloyd — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:27:07 GMT

I'm not surprised that Ken Miller got a little impatient with you. I sounds like you were pushing a kind of doctrinal purity of science. On the science, where there is evidence, Miller accepts the evidence. Beyond that is simply beyond that, there is no evidence. Believing any statement outside science, "it is wrong to torture babies", "Led Zeppelin were the greatest band ever" or even "scientific descriptions approach a description of reality", requires believing without scientific evidence.

The crack about ripping out the first book of the Bible, frankly, reveals that you have not quite rid yourself of the Creationist lust for dichotomous certainty. The Creationist/Fundie holds that either the Bible is absolutely true in all respects or is completely false and so holds that it is completely true. You appear to agree with the premise and conclude the opposite. Not-with-standing recent bollocks about condoms the current Pope wrote a really good book about exactly how Genesis can be reconciled with science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Creation-Ratzinger/dp/0860124061/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239359035&sr=8-1)

(A short precis: "Genesis is not a science textbook - it's like arguing against Newton using Holst's Planet Suite")

Miller agrees with you where it matters - let him have his "heresy" in completely unrelated subjects.

Thx for the review.

Cedric Katesby — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:03:56 GMT

Very good review. Came over here from Pharyngula.
Keep up the good work.

Confusing Two Authors

Jason Bock — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:56:11 GMT

Tony,

I'm guessing you came from PZ Myers' site. The review he posted from an e-mail didn't come from me; it's from someone else (who was actually sitting next to me :) ).

3 examples

Aaron — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:31:13 GMT

Great review. Do you happen to remember the 3 examples of beneficial mutations? I'm always looking for more ammo to debate my creationist friends.

3 Examples

Jason Bock — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:01:33 GMT

Aaron, I didn't take notes during this exchange, and Miller started talking a bit fast (you could tell the guy who asked the question got him a little charged up ;) ). 1) HIV and why some people seem resistant to the virus. 2) Something ... about baterial cultures and mutating to use a food source they never used before 3) Why our blood doesn't freeze - IIRC it has something to do with a mutation with something from our stomach. Man, I hope no one quotes me on these, because frankly I don't remember the details. I was more amazed at how forceful he cut this guy down - that's what I was focusing on :).

knee-jerk deference

Ichthyic — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 04:06:51 GMT

@Tony Lloyd:

"Miller agrees with you where it matters - let him have his "heresy" in completely unrelated subjects."

well, that's just it. Miller often INSISTS on tossing in completely irrelevant ideology into talks that putatively are supposed to be about science.

If I start giving a lecture on the evolution of ontogenetic color change in fishes, and then spend 10 minutes talking about Harry Potter and how wizards can cause color changes with magic wands, I would frankly be unsurprised to find much of my audience critical.

If one insists on parading their inane and irrelevant opinions on things, why on earth must we shut up about it and "let them have it"? this knee-jerk deference to religious ideology must STOP, if we are ever to feel we can have reasonable discourse.

I like Ken, and his presentations, as much as the next guy, but see no rational reason for NOT criticizing things in his lectures that are irrelevant to our understanding of evolutionary biology, let alone just plain inane.

If he prefers not to have his personal house of cards deconstructed, best not let people gawk at it.

frankly, from what I've seen, the man can take criticism quite well.

Mr

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:18:48 GMT

The teleonomic argument is that since the weight of evidence presents no cosmic teleology, then no God directs Nature, and to postualte Him as theistic evolutionists do is to contradict non-planning natural selection, the anti-chance agency of Nature.
Nature is teleonomic [ atelic]- no pre-ordained results. Had matters being different and we had not appeard, no other being like us was possible,Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson,notwithstanding as Jerry Coyne notes in "Seeing and Believing [ Google his name to find it on-line,], and an article in Skeptic magazine also notes that.