Recap of Ken Miller Talk

UPDATE: Since PZ Myers linked to this post, some people are coming over here to read my review. However, in his post, he includes another review that he received in e-mail, but that review did not come from me. Just wanted to clear that up.

UPDATE #2: Here's another account of the event.

Last night Ken Miller spoke at St. Catherine University. I've seen video of Miller speaking so I wanted to make sure I was up close for this talk:

From what I could tell when I looked behind me during the Q&A session, the event was well-attended.

The crux of Miller's talk is that evolution is as true of a theory in science as any other theory that we have in science. The pieces of evidence that exist to support the theory of evolution is vast: numerous transistional forms, our chromosomes clearly show that we share a common ancestors with other animals, etc. The problem is that there are people who fight evolution for various reasons and will distort the evidence to fit their twisted versions of creationism. The court systems have seen this battle played out again and again, and while science has almost always been the victor in these cases, the war is still not over (the recent events in Texas is a good illustration of this). Near the end of the talk, Miller started to get into how he bridges his theistic view (he says he is a Roman Catholic) with evolution. He says that evolution basically is the way God brought forth the species and that it's actually a very elegant way to view design (although not in the way Intelligent Design sees it).

Overall, I thorougly enjoyed Miller's talk. While I started to disagree with him as he got into the religious aspect of his talk at the end, it was very interesting to learn more about the background of the Dover case and just how much evidence is out there to support evolution. Miller is also an excellent speaker, and this is one reason I really wanted to see him. Over the last 2 or 3 years, I've started to do a lot more public speaking and while I think I'm not bad at it, seeing someone like Miller give a presentation shows how far I have to go. I didn't pick up on any speaking "ticks", like him saying "um" or a specific word over and over and over again. He's very engaging and he has a lot of passion about what he's talking about. Not once did I even get remotely bored listening to him.

He also handled the Q&A section very well (I was the one that asked the question about how can one get involved to ensure we keep science in the school systems). He was very gracious to all those who asked questions, but there was one yahoo in the back who I'm guessing was a creationists because he asked one of the stock questions they usually ask to try and throw people like Miller off: "Please supply one case where a mutation is beneficial." Miller started to answer the question, and the guy interrupted Miller rather rudely - that was a big mistake. Miller said, "please let me answer the question" and proceeded to list 3 cases off the top of his head of beneficial mutations. I was extrememly impressed with the force Miller used to completely dismantle this guy's question.

I was glad I was able to attend this event. It's reinforced in my mind that science is so criticial for the success of a society and humanity in general. It's also encouraging to see a person who is a devoted theist state that evolution is simply a "fact"; to say otherwise is basically to deny the reality that God has created. I was a creationist early on in my life, and only when I actually started to challenge the assertions that creationists made did I realize what a fool I was. People who claim that evolution is false are either willingly deceiving themselves and/or others, and we as a society need to ensure that we do not let them influence how science is done in this country.

If you get a chance to see Miller speak, I encourage you to do so. I felt it was more than worth my time to catch his presentation.

* Posted at 04.09.2009 11:40:04 AM (Last Update: 04.15.2009 10:18:50 PM) | 9 comments | Link | RSS *

Comments

# Nice Review, from Eric at 04.09.2009 01:36:01 PM

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, from Blue Lizard at 04.09.2009 09:32:43 PM

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

# Mr, from Tony Lloyd at 04.10.2009 06:27:07 AM

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., from Cedric Katesby at 04.10.2009 07:03:56 AM

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

# Confusing Two Authors, from Jason Bock at 04.10.2009 07:56:11 AM

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, from Aaron at 04.10.2009 07:31:13 PM

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, from Jason Bock at 04.10.2009 09:01:33 PM

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, from Ichthyic at 04.11.2009 12:06:51 AM

@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, from Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth at 04.15.2009 10:18:48 PM

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.

Add a Comment

(*) = Required field
Name (*):

E-Mail (*):

Web Site:

Title (*):

Comments (*):

Enter the code you see (*)



Quote
"If you read John Milton's Paradise Lost you will find that his Heaven is described as an eternal sing-along of praise to God. It is no wonder that one-third of the angels rebelled." Isaac Asimov
Twitter History
follow me on Twitter
Blog History