Hypocritical Kenneth Miller's evolution disclaimer
Kenneth Miller was a plaintiffs' expert witness in two recent evolution disclaimer cases, Kitzmiller v. Dover and the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case. As it turns out, though, biology textbooks that he has co-authored have their own evolution disclaimer -- a denial of the notion that Darwinism conflicts with religion. Here is an excerpt from those textbooks:
Unlike the Dover and Cobb County evolution disclaimers, Kenneth Miller's above evolution disclaimer is a blatantly religious statement. Although Miller was a co-author rather than the sole author of the textbook, arguably he still has some responsibility for the above statement.
An article in Evolution News & Views also quoted the passage that contained the above quote. This article says that the latest editions of the textbook "do not seem to contain such anti-theological language." So this textbook was cleaned up, just as the ID book Of People and Pandas was cleaned up by replacing the term "creationism" with "intelligent design."
Also, I was astonished that the plaintiffs in establishment clause cases, Kitzmiller and Selman, had the chutzpah to choose an expert witness -- Kenneth Miller -- who claims to be motivated by religion.
Despite the fact that the Kitzmiller v. Dover case has probably been the most thoroughly analyzed court case in history, it seems that new flaws in it are still being discovered almost daily, more than six months after the decision.
A related article on this blog is "Kenneth Miller the hypocrite"
Some scholars speculate that fear of being branded a heretic for his materialism contributed to Darwin's 21-year delay in publishing his theory. The same antimaterialistic reasoning also drives much modern-day opposition to evolutionary thought.
Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone," he wrote. Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them.
-- from Kenneth Miller's and Joseph Levine's biology textbook, Biology: Discovering Life. From Telic Thoughts
Unlike the Dover and Cobb County evolution disclaimers, Kenneth Miller's above evolution disclaimer is a blatantly religious statement. Although Miller was a co-author rather than the sole author of the textbook, arguably he still has some responsibility for the above statement.
An article in Evolution News & Views also quoted the passage that contained the above quote. This article says that the latest editions of the textbook "do not seem to contain such anti-theological language." So this textbook was cleaned up, just as the ID book Of People and Pandas was cleaned up by replacing the term "creationism" with "intelligent design."
Also, I was astonished that the plaintiffs in establishment clause cases, Kitzmiller and Selman, had the chutzpah to choose an expert witness -- Kenneth Miller -- who claims to be motivated by religion.
Despite the fact that the Kitzmiller v. Dover case has probably been the most thoroughly analyzed court case in history, it seems that new flaws in it are still being discovered almost daily, more than six months after the decision.
A related article on this blog is "Kenneth Miller the hypocrite"
Labels: Evolution controversy (4 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/08/2006 06:50:00 PM
26 Comments:
> Kenneth Miller's above evolution disclaimer is a blatantly religious statement. <
It sure doesn't appear to be. It only gives his interpretation that evolution is not incompatible with religion. This is not a religious statement.
> the book Of People and Pandas was cleaned up by replacing the term "creationism" with "intelligent design." <
Two names for the same thing. Who cares?
> Kenneth Miller -- who claims to be motivated by religion. <
Nothing you posted supports that claim.
> Kitzmiller v. Dover ... it seems that new flaws in it are still be discovered almost daily, more than six months after the decision. <
Your repetition of your errors in its interpretation are not new flaws. They are old flaws in your thinking.
In the mean time you are still ducking questions and challenges to debate. You can't help being a pathetic lunatic asshole but you can stop being a coward and hypocrite.
Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them.
I'm trying to figure out what's anti-theological about that statement. It seems very worshipful to me. Perhaps you can explain.
RedSonja2000 said ( 7/09/2006 05:11:21 AM ) --
>>>>>> (quoting textbook)"Like religious scientists of many faiths today, he found no less wonder in a god that directed the laws of nature than in one that circumvented them"<<.
I'm trying to figure out what's anti-theological about that statement. It seems very worshipful to me. Perhaps you can explain. <<<<<<
Fundies who believe that the biblical account of creation was divinely inspired and therefore to be taken literally could consider that statement to be anti-theological.
Anyway, the article that used that term "anti-theological" did not even quote the above statement in particular. Here is the complete statement from the article:
To Miller's credit, the latest editions of his textbook do not seem to contain such anti-theological language. But if Ken Miller has published 11 textbook versions, then it remains the case that more than half (6 / 11) of his textbooks have contained theologically charged language like evolution is "purposeless," "heartless," "required believing in philophical materialism," "random," "undirected," or "works without either plan or purpose" because it is implied there is "no divine plan."
Why did Miller claim that only one version of his textbook made such statements? I'll let the reader decide, but perhaps he already explained it to us: "what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake." There sure have been a lot of mistakes. -- from "Ken Miller's 'Random and Undirected' Testimony" by Casey Luskin
Anyway, I don't care whether the statement is anti-theological, pro-theological, or neutral on theology. To me, the problem is that it is a theological statement and therefore has no place in what is supposed to be a secular biology textbook for use in the public schools. The irony is that the statement is clearly religious whereas the evolution disclaimers held to be unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County were not. To me, that statement is like the following quote from the introduction of a Christian-school biology text:
The university rejected some class credits because Calvary Chapel relies on textbooks from leading Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book. A biology book from Bob Jones University presents creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution. The introduction says, "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second." -- from "Christian school suing UC over college credits"
> Fundies who believe that the biblical account of creation was divinely inspired and therefore to be taken literally could consider that statement to be anti-theological. <
People who are confused enough could misinterpret that statement to be anything. You obviously did.
> Here is the complete statement from the article: <
So they quote mined and you quoted them knowing that they had done so.
> To me, the problem is that it is a theological statement <
Only if it is completely misinterpreted.
> "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second." <
At least they have the honesty to admit that creationism (another word for intelligent design) is not science.
ViW,
What are you doing here on a weekend? I was just about to fill in for you and you took the words out of my mouth.
I see that Larry(?) is still cowering in fear of any debate. What happened to the hilarious claim that he was making about his honorific title? Now he has proved that we were right about "Scary Larry". He is clearly a buffoon.
I heard about "Larry's Cry Room" on another blog and thought that I would check it out. At first I thought that this was a spoof of other blogs but after reading some of it I can see that the author is really serious. He actually believes the garbage that he is posting.
On one hand, I feel quite sorry for him but on the other, I would really like to see what a debate would look like if he would actually engage in one. From my experience with disturbed people, my guess is that he will not debate.
Voice in the Wilderness, you should let up a little. Like Ed Brayton said, it is not fair to pull the chain of people who are clinically insane.
What is the meaning of this "Larry(?)" that you and a few others post? It probably came from something posted earlier but I haven't been able to find it.
Sherry D. said --
>>>>>On one hand, I feel quite sorry for him but on the other, I would really like to see what a debate would look like if he would actually engage in one. From my experience with disturbed people, my guess is that he will not debate.<<<<<<<
My patience is really wearing thin with those who claim that I won't debate. I have engaged in a lot of long debates on this blog and I have answered many questions. Many other bloggers -- like many of those on Panda's Thumb -- participate little or not at all in the discussions that follow their articles.
Not only does that SOB Ed Brayton refuse to debate me, which is his privilege, but he won't even let me post comments on his blog under my real name -- not even in reply to articles that are devoted to attacking me and my ideas. So Ed Brayton is the one with his own "cry room."
So, Sherry D., you know where you can get off. And take VIW with you.
> My patience is really wearing thin with those who claim that I won't debate. <
You have proved it. You should have no problem with people believing the truth.
Several threads back Paul Collier, who even gave his email address, offered to debate and you were too scared to even acknowledge his challenge. Voice in the Wilderness has repeatedly asked you a simple question and you reply by asking him a nonsensical unrelated question that you demand he answer first without promising even then to answer his question. If you are tired of people saying that you won't debate, why do you continue to prove it to be a fact?
It looks like my post and my analysis of you was completely accurate. I hope the you realize your need for professional help and get it soon.
Sherry D said,
>>>>>>Several threads back Paul Collier, who even gave his email address, offered to debate and you were too scared to even acknowledge his challenge.<<<<<<
It is highly unusual for a commenter to ask a blogger to just drop everything and engage in a general one-on-one debate. I acknowledged Paul's challenge in a private email and here is part of what I told him:
I am kept very busy running my blog and time constraints prevent me from engaging in long private discussions with individuals. However, you are of course welcome to post comments on my blog, just like any other visitor.
There are now nearly sixty articles ("posts") on my blog and maybe you could find one that is most appropriate for your comments (I do not necessarily oppose off-topic comments, but I think that comments should be posted under appropriate headings where possible).
I participate more than most bloggers in the discussion threads under my articles. If you go to Panda's Thumb, you will find that most of the bloggers there participate little or not at all in the discussions.
In my blog, I have tried to concentrate on non-ID criticisms of evolution, like criticisms concerning co-evolution.
I have not heard from him since, so I guess he wasn't that serious.
>>>>>Voice in the Wilderness has repeatedly asked you a simple question and you reply by asking him a nonsensical unrelated question that you demand he answer first without promising even then to answer his question.<<<<<<<
VIW said that there was something wrong with me because I did not see any good reason why a county sheriff should not serve process on a state or federal office. So I said that there was something wrong with him because he did not see any good reason why a notary public in Texas should not notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. Which reminds me of this joke about a sea captain and a midshipman:
Captain to midshipman: What would you do if you saw a stampeding herd of buffalo bearing down on your ship?
Midshipman: I'd stop them with a landslide, sir.
Captain (thinking that he now had the midshipman cornered): And exactly where would you get this landslide?
Midshipman: The same place where you got your herd of buffalo, sir.
> My patience is really wearing thin with those who claim that I won't debate. <
Well you have at least two choices: You can either debate or you can act like this is indeed "Larry's Cry Room". It looks like you have chosen the latter.
> I have engaged in a lot of long debates on this blog and I have answered many questions. <
Giving an answer that has already been shot down dozens of times to a handful of questions is not the same as answering many questions.
Your refusal to debate after making a big stink over other's alleged refusals to debate is discrediting you almost as much as your Dave impersonations a few weeks ago.
Stop giving us so much ammunition. Come out of your hole and debate. Please don't just repeat your old tired claims about the actions of others. They are not wrongly claiming that they are debating when they are not. They are not issuing challenges and then hiding from responses. You are a ridiculous and cowardly hypocrite.
> It is highly unusual for a commenter to ask a blogger to just drop everything and engage in a general one-on-one debate. <
So why did you ask Ed Brayton to do just that?
> I acknowledged Paul's challenge in a private email and here is part of what I told him:
I am kept very busy running my blog and time constraints prevent me from engaging in long private discussions with individuals. <
I can't understand how you have any time constraints at all. You have been unemployed since you were fired for incompetence around two decades ago. You have no useful pursuits and you have all the time in the world to engage in debate if you weren't certain that it would expose your ineptness and ignorance. The bottom line is that you are afraid to debate.
> I participate more than most bloggers in the discussion threads under my articles. <
As long as your responses are limited to repeated unsubstantiated pronouncements. You fear questions because they will expose your ignorance.
> In my blog, I have tried to concentrate on non-ID criticisms of evolution, like criticisms concerning co-evolution. <
Yet you have failed to do so. Most of your posts and many of your articles are just baseless attacks and name calling of people with whom you disagree.
> I have not heard from him since, so I guess he wasn't that serious. <
Perhaps he just realized the futility of trying to debate someone who is afraid to debate.
> Which reminds me of this joke about a sea captain and a midshipman: <
For the third time this month, you try to use a story which you don't understand. It is quite entertaining.
Voice In The Wilderness said ( 7/09/2006 07:59:33 PM ) --
> It is highly unusual for a commenter to ask a blogger to just drop everything and engage in a general one-on-one debate. <
So why did you ask Ed Brayton to do just that?<<<<<<
I challenged Ed to a debate over his blog articles that directly attacked me and my ideas. As an alternative, I proposed that he just unban me from his blog so I could defend myself there.
>>>>>> Which reminds me of this joke about a sea captain and a midshipman: <
For the third time this month, you try to use a story which you don't understand. It is quite entertaining. <<<<<
What is entertaining is that I hoisted you by your own petard -- just like what the midshipman did to the captain.
> he did not see any good reason why a notary public in Texas should not notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. <
Perhaps that is because there is no reason that a Texas notary should not under certain circumstances, notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. In some cases and situations, a Texas notary may be the only one qualified to do so.
You clearly have some misunderstanding of the rules of notarization, as you do with most legal questions. Your failure to answer is certainly evidence of this. You know tht you will look like a fool. Let me clue you in, Larry(?), you look like a fool now. You have nothing to lose.
> What is entertaining is that I hoisted you by your own petard -- just like what the midshipman did to the captain. <
No. Actually you only proved that you do not know the answer to his question. e.g.
> VIW said that there was something wrong with me because I did not see any good reason why a county sheriff should not serve process on a state or federal office. <
But there is a reason.
> So I said that there was something wrong with him because he did not see any good reason why a notary public in Texas should not notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. <
But there isn't a reason.
So your joke about a sea captain doesn't apply. You are the one who has been hoisted by his own petard here. You just demonstrated that you think that there is a problem with the notarization. This shows the ignorance of law which you were trying to avoid exposing.
Keep digging Larry(?)
>>>>>>Perhaps that is because there is no reason that a Texas notary should not under certain circumstances, notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. In some cases and situations, a Texas notary may be the only one qualified to do so.<<<<<<
Wrong. The Texas notary is certainly not the only one qualified to do so, nor is he the best qualified. The best qualified person is a notary public in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where the court is located, so the guy should just travel from Texas to Harrisburg to have his affidavit notarized.
You are just full of shit, Bill Carter, or whoever in the hell you are.
>>>>>>Perhaps that is because there is no reason that a Texas notary should not under certain circumstances, notarize a document to be filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. In some cases and situations, a Texas notary may be the only one qualified to do so.<<<<<<
> Wrong. The Texas notary is certainly not the only one qualified to do so, nor is he the best qualified. <
I didn't say that in every case he would be the only one qualified to do so. I said that in some cases he would be the only qualified person.
> The best qualified person is a notary public in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where the court is located, so the guy should just travel from Texas to Harrisburg to have his affidavit notarized. <
Was he in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania or for that matter, in Pennsylvania at all when he signed the affidavit? If not, a Pennsylvania notary public would not only not be the best person, he would not even be legally qualified.
I suspected that you were as ignorant about this subject as you are on other aspects of law, and you have just proven it. Thank you, Bill Carter, ex-notary public, for finally drawing this out of him. We got the last laugh.
You are just full of shit, Larry(?) Fafarman, or whoever in the hell you are.
>>>>>Was he in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania or for that matter, in Pennsylvania at all when he signed the affidavit? If not, a Pennsylvania notary public would not only not be the best person, he would not even be legally qualified.<<<<<<
You stupid, moronic, fatheaded, birdbrained, feeble-minded cretin, he could have traveled to Harrisburg to have the affidavit notarized!
Anyway, it looks like I finally got rid of that lousy pest Sherry D. Unlike you, she at least has the sense not to hang around where she is intellectually completely outclassed.
Sherry D said...
> What is the meaning of this "Larry(?)" that you and a few others post? <
A months or more ago, someone posted using the idiot's brother's name. The idiot's brother then posted a message on Ed Brayton's blog stating that he was not the one who had posted it and then asked for sympathy and understanding for his brother's current mental problems.
The idiot reacted to this by erupting and posting an "article" denying that his brother was indeed his brother and even invented a reply from his "real" brother. Ed proved conclusively who was the real Dave Fafarman and also that the fake Dave posts were coming from Larry's address. Larry(?) went through his usual act of repeating falsehoods over and over in hopes that someone would fall for it. At the same time he asked their mother to ask Dave to stop posting. What hypocrisy!
The real Dave is still posting on this blog but rarely uses his real name. His eloquent posts are as obvious as is Larry(?)'s ranting when he attempts to impersonate others.
The comedy grew when a man named Bill Carter who has proven his claim that he has known Larry(?) for at least 49 years, came on and gave some background for Larry(?)'s current situation. This long prior friendship was corroborated Larry(?)'s brother Dave.
The idiot reacted to this by pretending that he had never heard of a Bill Carter. He claimed that he had asked his brother who he asserted said the same. He said that it was Ed Brayton posting as Bill Carter. Ed Brayton is, of course, posting under his own name.
I have enough first hand knowledge to know that there was indeed a Bill Carter who lived a short distance from Larry(?) and Dave and went to four of the same schools as Larry(?). Whether the Bill Carter posting on this board is the same Bill Carter can't be proven for certain but his knowledge of Larry(?) and his past would indicate that he is.
It is interesting that the idiot has inadvertently given more evidence of the reality of this Bill Carter. While he has no problem with names like Orville Wright, Sherlock Holmes, Oliver Winchester, and such, he always ends replies to Bill Carter with "whoever the hell you are" or something similar.
Because of the idiot's reluctance to admit the reality of his brother and Bill Carter, I always refer to him as "Larry(?)". Bill Carter has taken up this same custom as has been my weekend stand-in, "Voice in the Urbanness". There may be others.
Stick around. I have been following this blog for about two months and it gets more and more entertaining with every week. Several people think that I am too hard on the idiot. I see myself as an angel in disguise. I feel that if I can speed up his mental disintegration, it will hasten the time that he is driven off of the edge and is forced to get the help that he needs.
Larry(?) has never thanked me for my efforts but I don't mind. I will continue my good works unappreciated.
> And some bloggers think that commenters should follow certain rules (no multiple names, no excessive invective <
> You stupid, moronic, fatheaded, birdbrained, feeble-minded cretin <
> he could have traveled to Harrisburg to have the affidavit notarized! <
Why the hell should he? Was he in Harrisburg when he wrote the affidavit? Although a notarization can be made by any notary qualified in the jurisdiction in which the document is signed, when identities are questioned, the greatest weight is given to the authenticity of signatures notarized in one's home area. There is rarely a reason for a person to travel away from their home to have a document notarized. There certainly wasn't one here.
> Anyway, it looks like I finally got rid of that lousy pest Sherry D. <
Don't jump to conclusions. She so far has only been missing a short time and that is over the weekend when even I am not often here. Perhaps, unlike you, she has a life.
> she at least has the sense not to hang around where she is intellectually completely outclassed. <
I assume that you are referring to me, but I am on her side. I may outclass her intellectually but then again there are people like you that she can outdo without much effort.
I see what you mean, Voice. It isn't just a case of simple insanity. He is delusional as well. I can't find a single case where he has made an accurate interpretation of simple legal concepts and yet he pictures himself as a great legal mind. He says something ridiculous and then repeats it even after it has been shown to be false.
Have you seen Ed Brayton's latest post? His description of Larry(?) is quite accurate.
Sherry D said...
> Have you seen Ed Brayton's latest post? His description of Larry(?) is quite accurate. <
Yes, Ed Brayton has described the pettifogger with great accuracy. Since he is telling the truth, Larry(?) could learn from his observations:
"That truly is Larry's modus operandi, and it's exactly why I banned him from posting here. It doesn't matter how wrong he is, how clearly documented it is that he is wrong, he absolutely refuses to ever change his position. And he'll drop 50 comments saying the exact same thing, ignoring all of the evidence against him, in order to defend a clearly indefensible position. He's simply impervious to reason and evidence."
"Sexy Sadie" asked:
"Dear god, why can't they let this go? Their side lost the Dover case! They need to learn to deal with this fact and move on with their lives."
Of course she didn't realize that Larry(?) doesn't have a life but Ed answered:
"Good question. In Larry's case it's because he's got serious psychiatric problems and he's essentially 'perseverating' on this case, as they say in special education."
As you can see, he has Larry(?) nailed.
"Raging Bee" showed his sympathy for your situation with:
"PS: I just took a quick look at poor Larry's post. What a sad, sorry case..."
See, Larry(?). These people do show some compassion for your situation. You should show some appreciation and thank them.
Dave, your real brother, not the one you invented, just informed me that you sent him a flaming post accusing him of setting me loose on you.
Since you deny my existence, how could Dave have set me loose on you? The only post that I have made recently was the one pointing out your absurd misconception about notarizing. That one was beautiful. You really brought down the house with that one! Dave thought that you would be wise to just admit your error and go on. I pointed out that you have never shown signs of wisdom and, like Ed suggests, you will just continue to dig the hole in which you have found yourself.
Please don't bother Dave anymore with your flaming posts or your screaming phone calls. He doesn't exist, remember? Neither do I.
To the few IDiots on this blog. Don't you find it a little disconcerting to have this lunatic supporting your cause? I would.
>>>the guy should just travel from Texas to Harrisburg to have his affidavit notarized. <<<
Which defeats the purpose of having a notary public in the first place.
>>>the guy should just travel from Texas to Harrisburg to have his affidavit notarized. <<<
> Which defeats the purpose of having a notary public in the first place. <
Watch this. The idiot will just dig in. Hilarious!
Larry has figured it out. According to him I am Voice in the Urbanness, Bill Carter and Sherry D. He is too smart for me. I am all of those people, also W. Kevin Vickland, Bob Serrano, Ed Brayton, and even occasionally Larry Fafarman.
I am now willing to reveal my true identity. I am the antichrist.
I admit it too. I am all of those people. But here is the real secret. Larry is actually Ed Brayton. Ed has set up this blog as a straw man. He posts here under the name "Larry Fafarman" looking like a complete nut case just to make the anti-evolution people look bad.
Give it up, Ed. You are being too obvious.
Post a Comment
<< Home