Four Minutes with Kenneth Miller

This video features Kenneth Miller, who was a witness for the good guys at the Kitzmiller trial. He’s explaining why our chromosome #2 is something we inherited from our primate ancestors. Oook, oook!

As our title says, it’s only four minutes long. You can spare the time — unless you insist that you ain’t no kin to no monkey.

After you’ve seen it, feel free to use the comments as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Four Minutes with Kenneth Miller

  1. docbill1351

    This lecture was put together on-the-fly by Miller after the debate between him and Behe was cancelled because Behe didn’t show up.

    Later, well, and up to this very day, Attack Gerbil First Class Luskin disputes Miller’s analysis because … well, because! Chromosome 2 could have just happened. Ixnay on the apay. NO apays here, nothing to see, move on.

    Of course, Gerb has no explanation for all the inactivated viral snippets shared by Ape chromosomes 12 and 13.

    However, Answers in Genesis has the best rebuttal because they write that Dr. Miller overlooked the best and most reliable evidence: were you there? No, but God was and it says in the Bible – the usual stuff.

    There you have it. Luskin ignores the data and replaces it with the Designer. Hambo ignores the data and replaces it with God.

  2. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Speaking of Miller and Hambo, here’s an old fav …

  3. nicely done in 4 minutes…thanks for the link!

  4. How does saying that unspecified intelligent designers did it that way, without a hint as to how, when, where, why – how does that differ from “chance”?

    While, on the other hand, where in the Bible does it say anything about God designing chromosomes?

  5. For another exposition, including also a prior inversion event common to chimps and humans but not to other apes, see http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basics-genomes-as-ancient-texts-part-5 especially the last two diagrams.

    And I love the way Ken spells out the implication: EITHER the human genome is the result of evolution from an ancestor shared with chimps, OR the Designer who made it look that way is being deliberately deceptive. Corollary: for a believer, given present knowledge, evolution denial is blasphemous.

  6. Paul Braterman says: “Corollary: for a believer, given present knowledge, evolution denial is blasphemous.”

    The only way out of that devilish dilemma is to reject all knowledge of science.

  7. Or, in other words, what Ken, a believer, is saying, is this: If the human Chromosome 2 is NOT the result of evolutionary history, but the work of a Designer, that Designer would have to be deliberately deceiving us. So believers, even more (if possible) than the rest of us, should accept the fact of evolution. I wish more believers would say that.

  8. Also, keep in mind certain things about the Divine Designer belief:
    Our ability to reason about the world of life is also the purposeful product of that Designer. It isn’t as if the Designer didn’t know what we would do with this evidence.
    These facts about the world of life constitute “complex, specified information”, that is, something which is as much in need of an explanation as is The Eye.

  9. Eddie Janssen

    If you can accept the excistence of a God, I can’t see why you won’t accept the possibility of a Q like character (Q being the annoying, almost all-powerfull character from Startrek, the next generation)

  10. TomS is absolutely right, although the implications are the very opposite of what Plantinga, whose argument he quotes, would have us believe. The eye, with its complexity and its built-in defects, can only be understood as the product of a long sequence of evolutionary steps, for some of which we have direct evidence. Likewise, the human mind, with its many known built-in defects, can only be understood as a sequence of such steps in our evolutionary past. (I couldn’t resist rising to TomS’s bait, but this is off topic and I apologise.)

  11. TomS says” Our ability to reason about the world of life is also the purposeful product of that Designer. It isn’t as if the Designer didn’t know what we would do with this evidence.”

    Our ability to reason came because Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, and thus gained the knowledge of good and evil. If they hadn’t done that, there’d be no debate about evolution – we’d all be frolicking naked in a perfect world.
    At least that’s what my “Creation Research” leads me to believe.

  12. Yes, Greg. And how do such Consequences of the Fall coordinate with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism?

  13. Mark Joseph

    I pointed this out to the creationist “exoticdoc2″ in our latest brouhaha (if you’re interested in the gory details, they are at http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/07/14/); if I’m not mistaken, he did not respond.

  14. It always bugged me that Q was unable to fix his overbite.

  15. I’d like Hammy,and others like him,to be hooked up to a lie detector. Get a professional to find out how much of what they say they actually believe. I’m aware the flock will allow them to slither out of it,when they fail,but it would be a lot of fun watching them sweat,and more fun watching the true nut bags pass the test.

  16. @TomS, I tried to look up the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism online, but my access here at work is frustratingly limited.
    As an agnostic, my own belief is that the physical universe is the result of scientifically explainable processes, and my previous argument to your statement was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

  17. Greg, the EAAN is Plantigna’s argument that if our minds were products of nature, they would be unreliable, since (he asserts) mistaken ideas could be as successful as correct ones. thus (his example – parody falls silent) the incorrect beliefs that it is delightful to be mauled by a tiger, and that the best way to get mauled is to run away from it, would be as successful as the correct ones which we hold in leading us to run from it.

    So, he argues, if our minds are the products of naturalistic evolution, they must be untrustworthy, and we could not trust them when they report overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution.

    My comment: there are indeed environments where one can survive on totally mistaken beliefs – the Philosophy faculty of Notre Dame, where Plantinga teaches, is one of them – but such locales would have been rare n our evolutionary history. There are indeed defects in our thinking, but these argue for, not against, naturalistic evolution – see my earlier comment.

  18. Plantigna’s logic makes no sense. Incorrect ideas with bad consequences (“it is delightful to be mauled by a tiger”) would tend to be selected against (by eliminating anyone silly enough to believe them); whereas incorrect ideas with good (or “useful”) consequences (“we are the chosen people of God” for instance) would tend to be propagated to the extent that they continue to produce “useful” results (ie, a tribe driven by a belief in its divine sanction profits at the expense of those that have no such delusion). Any honest examination of the human mind would admit: it is unreliable, and yet even its imperfections can be useful (in an evolutionary sense).

    Anyway Plantigna’s logic reminds me of a theistic inversion of this: