Quantcast

«

»

Oct 27 2013

Ken Miller on the Dover Trial

I came across this Youtube video of Ken Miller giving a talk about Intelligent Design and the Dover trial. I had given a talk myself about that trial around the same time, but his is, of course, much better than mine. It’s about an hour long but very much worth watching. Prof. Miller is brilliant and eloquent and very entertaining.

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    garnetstar

    Ed, you underrate yourself. I’ve watched Miller’s talk a couple of times, but I’ve watched your talk a *lot* (still do). You are just damn funny, and you always make me laugh out loud, even though I already know the jokes because I’ve watched it so often.

  2. 2
    khms

    Both speakers are funny enough. Miller was much easier to understand (I mean the acoustics, not the content), and had less awkward pauses; both seemed to have problems syncing the projections with the talk, and demonstrated … creative … reading skills.

    From the content, there are a lot of things covered only by one of the two, so you want to see both.

    Lastly, may I say how happy I am that this is not a struggle we have over here!

  3. 3
    janeymack

    I don’t suppose there is a transcript of this somewhere? (Or of yours, for that matter?)

  4. 4
    tfkreference

    Listening to Ed’s video, I heard him say that Scalia is very pro-creationism, yet the Catholic Church, which tells him the devil is real, accepts evolution (albeit with the clause about the soul). I guess he’s a cafeteria Catholic, like 99 or so percent if them.

  5. 5
    heddle

    tfkreference,

    I heard him say that Scalia is very pro-creationism, yet the Catholic Church, which tells him the devil is real, accepts evolution (albeit with the clause about the soul). I guess he’s a cafeteria Catholic, like 99 or so percent if them

    That makes no sense. The Catholic Church has stated that it is acceptable to affirm evolution (actually a type of theistic evolution) however that acceptance is not part of their Ex-Cathedra dogma. You can deny evolution–even the form they permit–and that says absolutely nothing about whether or not you are a cafeteria Catholic.

  6. 6
    tfkreference

    How convenient, considering that the only two ex cathedra statements are unfalsifiable claims about Mary (immaculate conception and assumption). The rest of orthodoxy is tradition.

  7. 7
    heddle

    How convenient, considering that the only two ex cathedra statements are unfalsifiable claims about Mary (immaculate conception and assumption). The rest of orthodoxy is tradition.

    That’s is also wrong. There is a great deal of pronouncements from ecumenical councils and the Magisterium that are now Catholic dogma. An obvious example (one of many, not just two as you claim) is transubstantiation. If you do not affirm that the elements become the actual body and blood–then you are indeed a cafeteria Catholic. Your original statement was simply wrong.

  8. 8
    jws1

    And if you do affirm that the elements become the actual body and blood – then you are indeed full of shit.
    Follow Dr. Miller’s advice – test your claim, publish the results, submit to peer-review. It would be a truly fantastic development to behold.

  9. 9
    heddle

    jws1 #8,

    That may be true but the point stands, denying evolution as deemed acceptable by the Catholic Church does not make one a cafeteria Catholic.

  10. 10
    jws1

    I see. It just seems like what unites the many different versions of Christianities is the ability to change the definition of what’s acceptable at politically convenient moments throughout history. You’d think the inventor of physics could get the rules right the first goddam time.

  11. 11
    Michael Heath

    jws1 writes:

    You’d think the inventor of physics could get the rules right the first goddam time.

    Well that, along with God’s people being:
    a) the most effective proponent of our learning what’s objectively true, and
    b) a disproportionately high percentage of the population that discovers what’s objectively true.

    Rather than say, being the biggest obstacle to discovery and the biggest proponents of defending holy dogma rather than using science to discover what’s true.

  12. 12
    tfkreference

    Thanks for the clarification, heddle, I guess I was reacting to your use of “ex cathedra” as synecdoche for all dogma. To me, the cafeteria line is the Catechism, and Scalia seems to be leaving paragraph 2293(and at least one other that I can’t find) off his tray.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site