The title of this new post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is quite revealing: The Materialist Narrative and the Power of Bias. It suggests that there are two “narratives” for describing the universe: (1) materialism, a somewhat fuzzy term; and (2) supernaturalism.
It was written by Brian Miller — and this is the first time we’ve discussed an article by him. The Discoveroids’ bio page for him says:
Dr. Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He holds a B.S. in physics with a minor in engineering from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University. He speaks internationally on the topics of intelligent design and the impact of worldviews on society.
Here are some excerpts from his post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Scientists in Western cultures have been trained to see the world through a materialist metanarrative where the only acting players are matter and energy. In other words, the universe is a closed system where no higher power or non-material forces are believed to interact.
Fair enough. The scientific view of things excludes any influence by a “higher power” — i.e., a deity. But this isn’t an arbitrary preference. Rather, it’s because of the absence of any method for verifiably observing or testing supernatural influences — see Bring Me An Angel Detector!, where we discuss this at length. We also quoted the Discoveroids’ wedge document, which says:
[T]he Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … [T]he Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
Okay, now that we know what Brian is talking about, let’s read on. He says:
Those inculcated with this way of thinking see nature through a lens where all evidence for design is assumed to be an illusion, so all arguments for design are treated a priori as false. In contrast, those operating from a non-materialist viewpoint typically see the world though a design-tolerant lens. From this perspective, the materialists appear to demonstrate as much bias and disregard for empirical evidence as they accuse design proponents of exhibiting.
As an example, the evidence for design is found ubiquitously throughout life, and an extremely strong case is made that it can be objectively detected through the same methods used in such disciplines as archaeology, cryptography, SETI, and forensics. This point should be obvious considering that even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life looks designed.
[*Groan*] We want evidence, and all the Discoveroids have is endless invocations of the Watchmaker analogy. After that, Brian tells us:
Materialists dismiss all of this evidence [Hee hee!] by simply appealing to the perceived unlimited power of natural selection, which even leading evolutionary theorists increasingly question. A primary reason for such doubts is that the genetic variation in every species is only sufficient to allow for changes in superficial features, and observed mutations which could potentially expand the range require altering an organism’s basic architecture during development. But such mutations are always harmful.
No need to comment. He continues:
Materialists also ignore that a general feature of life found at every organizational level is irreducible complexity [blah, blah, blah].
That’s not worth rebutting again. See Rev. David Rives Explains Irreducible Complexity, and also The Ultimate Discovery Institute Post. Skipping a few equally brilliant paragraphs, we’re told:
Unfortunately, for many the materialist narrative has so suffused their thinking that evolutionary theory has become hopelessly intertwined with anti-religious sentiment. We would do well, then, to encourage materialists to look past their assumptions, to objectively examine the evidence for design. They might then discern the reality of intelligent involvement in nature, resulting in a collapse of the materialist philosophical framework. They would then have the freedom to consider the reality beyond the material world.
As soon as the Discoveroids present us with evidence, we’ll be happy to examine it.
Brian ends his post with a paragraph devoted to Günter Bechly, about whom we’ve already written too much. See, e.g., Discoveroid Günter Bechly Has Been ‘Erased’.
So there you are, dear reader. Brian has exposed your foolish bias. Why — oh why? — won’t you open your mind to the endless possibilities of Oogity Boogity?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Brian with his background in breaking glass* is perfectly positioned to comment on biological evolution.
*Stress fluctuations in continuously sheared granular media
Miller, Brian J.. Duke University, 1997 PhD Dissertation.
Not having access to anything, but the abstract in which Brian proclaims: “The low-frequency behavior suggests long-range correlations that can not be accounted for by any current theory.”
Which I am sure he answered that supernatural forces controlled by a transcendent agent god were responsible for the said unaccountable long-range correlations.
Brian J. Miller:
“…the perceived unlimited power of natural selection, which even leading evolutionary theorists increasingly question.”
[Bold added.]
To paraphrase Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, which “leading evolutionary theorists”? Who are they, and how many? And “increasingly question”? Sounds more like a polemic than a reasoned statement. Brian, to show that anyone is “increasingly” questioning anything, you would have to cite all their statements over an extended period of time, and those statements would need to be “increasingly questioning”. In other words, it’s an easy statement for you to make, but darn near impossible for you to back up with facts. As a PhD. scientist, you should know better than to make statements you can’t back up. It damages your credibility.
So, the implication of what I wrote above is that if a statement can’t be backed up with facts, it is simply one person’s wishful thinking. But stating that “leading evolutionary theorists increasingly question” natural selection, is simply false, although Brian Miller mighty not understand it is false. He may have read it in someone else’s writings, and unquestioningly accepted it as fact because it lined up with what he would like to be true.
So I’m not going to accuse him of “lying for Jesus”, but in effect, that’s the case. Again, he damages his credibility as a scientist.
Blooping Bryan goes off the rails really fast.
“all evidence for design is assumed to be an illusion”
Uh no. What evidence do we have for design when we find Paley’s watch?
1. We have a pretty good idea who the designers are (and they belong to our natural reality), because we can observe them while at work;
2. We have a pretty good idea which materials the designers use and which procedures they follow, for the same reason.
From this follows simply how we stubborn evilutionist athiest nazist communist naturalist materialists can be convinced.
Show us how the Grand Old Designer (praised be Him/Her/It!) did it;
tell us which reliable method you use to separate correct claims G.O.D. and his/her/its work (praise that too!) from incorrect ones (our dear SC aready referred to this) The fact that Blooping Bryan and Ol’Hambo are totally incapable of reaching any consensus except for the three core tenets of creacrap nicely illustrates this problem.
“the perceived unlimited power of natural selection,”
One blooper follows another. This falls in the same category as Ray Comfort’s crocoduck.
Oh My Holiness RSG, may I humbly ask you a question? Is “lying for Jesus on behalf of others” any less a sin than “lying for Jesus sec”, especially given the 9th Commandment as laid down in Exo 20:16 and Deu 5:20? The subtlety of this continues to escape my tortured soul. I beg you to bring me relief.
A zebra looks like a horse, but that doesn’t mean it is one (though I suppose creationists would say it belongs to the “horse kind”).
As for Richard Dawkins, this bit of quote-mining grossly misrepresents his position, which as I understand it is basically that the appearance of design is due to the fact that less-well-adapted organisms tend to be replaced by better-adapted ones because the latter simply produce more offspring than the former. No need for a Designer. I’m uncertain whether Dr. Miller is ill-informed or dishonest regarding this point.
Not always, just usually. The difference between the two is analogous to the difference between a curvature of zero and one of 0.0144 degrees per mile, which just happens to be the difference between a flat earth and a round one.