Ken Miller’s “The Collapse of Intelligent Design”

Published March 25th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson


This is a very interesting discussion on the subject of Intelligent Design by Brown University’s Kenneth Miller. It’s just under two hours long, and if you have the time I highly recommend watching it. There is even a mention of Pastafarianism at around 90 minutes.

439 Responses to “Ken Miller’s “The Collapse of Intelligent Design””

  1. DutchPastaGuy says:

    @Wench Nikkiee
    “Eeek what’s happening…I’ve got italics now on this thread…I didn’t do anything…honest!”
    Relax Nikkiee, the thread was already messed up before your post. And while several have tried, none has found a way to undo it once it is messed up.

  2. Wench Nikkiee says:

    No Jingles fixed the italics before….maybe not on your system but it was normal again on mine on mine. It’s ok again now :)
    On another note…..happy happy days…there had to be homologous genes between animals and plants and now they are increasingly being identified and isolated. I’m sure there’s plenty more stories like this one on the way…… too :)
    “Study shows humans and plants share common regulatory pathway”
    What say all the YEC/IDiots to that? :)))

  3. Red DutchPasta Kidd says:

    something like: I aint related to no plant. Or : It’s all a vast conspiracy from the thousands of scientist out there, we have 200 here and they say it’s not true, can’t be true because it does’t say so in the bible.

  4. Jingles says:

    @Wench Nikkiee
    You learn well young grasshopper.
    “If you are that close to a black hole, the parts of your body near the black hole are pulled with more force than the parts further away from the hole, leading to serious discomfort.”
    Apparently, if you aim yourself at a large enough black hole, the (gravitational force gradient? I dunno… sounds about right) is slight enough that you can approach comfortably most of the way to the singularity before tidal forces rip you to itty-bitty shreds. But then they do.
    Black holes are fun… :D

  5. bill says:

    @Rowdy Wench

    “I’ve always thought that relative velocities had more to do with how fast you are traveling relative to the speed of light…I am having a hard time getting my head around this, but it’s very interesting! ”

    The speed of light is the limit speed between two objects and often velocities are measured like 1/2 speed of light or 2/3 speed of light but it makes no sense to refer to how fast something is going without reference to some other object. In other words velocities are not absolute things but relative to other objects.
    When kirk or pickard say they are stopped in space, they make a physics error, unless physics changes. The speed of light is the absolute limit for things approaching or departing from each other.

  6. Rowdy Wench says:

    @ bill – Thanks! That does make more sense. Hadn’t thought about the stopped in space thing (despite having seen all of the Star Treks! OK, not Deep Space Nine…).

  7. bill says:

    “I can complicate things further by bringing in triplets of brothers.”
    Wow, I’m sure that would be a messy equation. But I wanted to make sure you see the apparent paradox I was referring to. Since both twins have the same view of each other that each should get younger than the other from each perspective, unless you see that the main difference in brothers is that one is accellerating.
    Another thing to consider is that the equations don’t just have to do with approach and depart. Consider, for instance, a line connecting Alpha Centauri and Sol. Through Alpha Centauri draw a line perpendicular to the first line and consider a traveller on that line going 86% the speed of light (enough to make time at 1/2 rate). Now he’s not approaching earth or going away from earth very fast as he passes near alpha centauri, but I assume that the time dilitation equation is the same. That is, if we see his clock, it will be going at half rate.
    In the earlier relativity books, they always talked about this in terms of a train and it was always a train speeding by, not approaching or departing, so I assume this is correct. In the same way, if the distant traveller looks towards earth, he will see earth’s clocks going at 1/2 rate.
    I don’t have the understanding to deal with the ‘3 body problem’, but it is interesting.

  8. DutchPastaGuy says:

    Sorry to have been away for abit.
    I see the paradox, but I don’t know the answer to it. I’m on a conference this week, maybe I’ll throw up the problem as a little thought excercise over lunch some day.
    I don’t know about the three body problem either. I just wanted to point out (not even sure if it was correct) that the 2*2/3 c > c problem cannot be simply undone by looking at it from the perspective of the brother whose ship turns around. From his perspective things may be ok, that doesn’t make the problem go away. From the perspective of someone who keeps on moving (i. e. a third brother whose ship doesn’t turn), the problem is still there.
    Hopefully there’ll be someone here who knows the stuff better.

Leave a Reply