Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University graciously took the time to respond to my onen letter that was addressed to him and Dr. Francis Collins. He has given me permission to publish his reply in full. I will not be making any editorial comments or raising additional questions at this time. I only wish to add my sincere gratitude to Dr. Miller for his kindness and the sincerity with which he answered my questions. I did take the liberty of highlighting excerpts from my original letter in bolded italics to make it easier to distinguish my questions from Dr. Miller's answers. Trust me, my questions are not more important than Dr. Miller's answers. That is not an impression I'm trying to create. Highlighting was added solely for purpose of improved readability. Without any further ado, it is my distinct pleasure and an honor to present Dr. Miller's unexpurgated, detailed reply: May 26, 2015 Dear Mr. Leonard, I don’t know if Dr. Collins will find the time, in the midst of his public duties, to respond to your open letter. But I do have a few minutes right now, after submitting all of my grades for the semester and having finished my last set of recommendation letters, to respond to your inquiries. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. I cannot speak for either Coyne or Collins, but I suspect they would answer this statement the same … [Read more...]
An open letter to Dr. Francis Collins (and Dr. Ken Miller)
Dear Dr. Collins, I'd like to begin by saying that I have tremendous respect for your work on the Human Genome Project. I enjoyed your book The Language of God so much that even quoted you a couple of times in my book, Counterargument for God. So, if there is a human being on planet Earth as qualified to answer my question as (atheist) biologist Jerry Coyne, it would appear to be either you, or (Catholic) biology professor Ken Miller, whose work I'm most familiar with from watching his lectures posted on You Tube that attack intelligent design. However, I did appreciate his calm and pleasant demeanor on display while he ridiculed my personal beliefs. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. Unsurprisingly, Professor Coyne didn't respond to his open letter. However, I didn't really try to hide the fact that I am a creationist and an advocate of intelligent design. Professor Coyne may have been hostile to the source, rather than the questions asked. In retrospect, I probably could have done a better job of framing my questions without antagonizing him. Professor Benoit LeBlanc was kind enough to attempt answering them, but unfortunately his answer required Deep Time that I don't believe is available in the scenario we're hopefully about to discuss. I don't believe my personal religious beliefs will keep either of you gentlemen from answering my questions because we are all … [Read more...]
Christian atheists
Some words just don't seem to go together. For example, there's honest politician. Another phrase that seems somewhat oxymoronic is lucky loser. And then there's Christian atheist. Seriously? How can anyone be an atheist and a Christian? The contradiction of the two terms seems painfully obvious. The short answer is, you can't. This isn't another way of describing Christian apostasy -- apostates tend to be activists, relentless and very aggressive with their attacks on Christianity. Many Christian apostates not only reject the tenets of their former faith, they seek to eradicate belief in weak Christians. Wikipedia defined a Christian atheist as someone who rejects belief in any sort of a supernatural God, but tries to emulate the moral example of Jesus. I must admit that I've never encountered a Christian atheist before -- in fact, the only person that might have fit the description of one was Mahatma Gandhi, and he was murdered years before I was born. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to reject that Jesus was the Christ, yet make him your primary role model. Let's face facts -- Jesus wasn't real big on having fun, was he? Think about it...if atheism really is true, and Darwin's theory about how life randomly descended into modern animals without rhyme or reason, then the only sensible rule for society should truly be survival of the fittest. Every man for himself and woman for herself, and get all you can while you can. After all, you're going to die soon enough, and there goes your chance to lie, cheat, steal, commit … [Read more...]
How does the brain record memories?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one. However, that's never going to stop me from asking serious questions to those people who do claim or pretend to be professional scientists. Recently an atheist friend (probably former friend, to be technically correct. I think he "unfriended" me after this exchange) asserted in our discussion as a statement with authority that neuroscientists have pretty much figured out how the human brain works. Really? I thought. It's been my considered opinion for some time now that we humans aren't nearly as smart as we think. So I asked my now-former friend what I thought was a pretty simple and straightforward question: how does our brain store a memory? I do know how computers manage the feat but for humans, I can only guess. Most people understand that computers mimic the human brain in several respects. However, as a former developer, I know quite a bit about how computers go about performing their job, and the ways in which computers and the human brain are quite different. Computers and humans both have memory, meaning an ability to recall historical information for use in current and future decision-making. When we work in a computer program, our efforts are only stored temporarily in that computer's memory. For our work to become persistent and thus made available for future use, we must take specific action to save our effort in the current session to the computer's hard drive. Otherwise, when we close the browser and turn off the machine, our work is lost … [Read more...]
The origin of the universe
Once upon a time, some of the smartest people in the world thought the universe might have always existed in its current state, hence the name steady state theory was given to the idea of an eternal universe that has always existed in more or less its current form. Aristotle. Bertrand Russell. Sir Fred Hoyle. These men were certainly not stupid. In fact, they were among the most brilliant intellectuals of their respective eras. Coincidentally, all three of these men were atheists. They believed our allegedly "fine-tuned" universe was eternal in part because there was insufficient scientific evidence, at least in their minds, for them to believe otherwise. But they also believed the universe had always existed as it currently is because of the implications created by the alternative, a fine-tuned universe that once had a beginning. Hoyle famously said, Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom; otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. Clearly, the idea of an eternal universe has more appeal than the idea of a fine-tuned universe produced from absolute nothingness, possibly because it is less complex. Fred Hoyle … [Read more...]
