What is the Essence of Kenneth Miller’s Court about Evolution?


Last year, a trial about evolution was performed in Ohio State in the United States.



In the State mentioned above, when the Intelligent Design Theory also took place besides the Evolution Theory in the curriculum, the case was taken to the court. Kenneth Miller, a biologist, participated in the court with his lawyers arguing that the Intelligent Design should not be taught at schools.



The court has two stages. The first one is the scientific aspect , and the other one is the judicial aspect of the case. 



a)    The scientific aspect of the case:



1- In the Intelligent Design Theory, it is mentioned that tiny hairs have an irreducible complexity and in order to function, they must necessarily have a complex structure; they cannot have emerged by evolving individually.



In the court, Miller also mentions that there are some hairs which are one less than the existing quantity and still functioning.



2- In the Intelligent Design, attention is also attracted to the fact that it is essential for several factors to get together for blood to coagulate. It is mentioned that in case of any of the factors’ absence, human blood will not coagulate; so blood in humans cannot be a proof that it has come from less developed beings through evolution. 



Miller indicates that blood still coagulates in whales, in case of the absence of one of the blood coagulating factors in human beings.            



3- Miller mentions that monkeys who are supposed to be the ancestors of humans have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 chromosomes. He claims that during transition from monkey to human, the two chromosomes mutated and fell into pieces and merged with the other chromosomes and thus the number of the chromosomes in human beings became 46.



4- Other proofs introduced to the court by Miller and his lawyers are approximately 50 books written by evolutionist biologists who tell that humans came into existence from lower organisms. 



Evaluation:



Miller’s claims about tiny hairs and the factors related to the coagulation of blood do not mean that there is no plan and program in tiny hairs and in the structure of blood. The essence of that theory is that everything was designed and made according to a specific plan and aim, and someone planning and making them definitely exists.



The claim that 46 chromosomes of humans emerged from 48 chromosomes of monkeys is one possibility out of infinite possibilities. Extremely different opinions and evaluations about that subject can be put forward. For example, it is also possible that human beings directly came into existence with 46 chromosomes. Accepting that claim of Miller’s as true is a prejudiced, atheistic approach.    



Besides, the number of chromosomes in living beings is not important. As more chromosomes can exist in lower organisms, there are also some higher organisms having the same number of chromosomes.  The basic thing is the essence of the chromosomes; in other words, the genes forming the chromosomes and the chemical components constituting the genes.  The characters controlling the genes are important. Let alone having the same number of chromosomes, even if a gene is different, great differences between the living things emerge. Sometimes a subtle difference in the genetic structure completely changes the structure of that living thing. 



The trial is carried on the claim that evolution is scientific but the Intelligent Design is not. The studies of the evolutionists are offered as evidence. That situation shows that the Evolution Theory is privileged in advance and it is accepted as definitely true.  



b-The judicial aspect of the case:



The members of the court are not biologists, of course. Therefore, to which extent the evidence offered to the court has a scientific value is out of their field. The members of the court are only interested in whether the opinions put forward denote the existence of a creator, in other words, they are only interested in whether the opinions put forward have a religious value or not because the laws do not permit the theories prepared according to a certain religious approach or the theories bringing such opinions to mind.  



Miller indicates the same thing himself. He mentions that his lawyers found the old edition of the Intelligent Design Theory and that the same evidence had been used there, too. He expresses that the phrase “the Intelligent Design” was used in the new edition where the word “the Creator” had been used in previous editions. He states that the first editions of that book implying or clearly indicating the existence of a Creator were forbidden to be taught by Arkansas Court in 1987; therefore, the new edition of the same book, which was partially modified, should not be taught, either. And the court adjudicates in the same way, too.     



In conclusion:



Whether an idea or a thought is scientific or not should be discussed within the framework of its own criteria and its own rules. Particularly, offering a theory including several philosophic thoughts and metaphysical ideas such as the Evolution Theory as a scientific information does not meet the scientific criteria.



It is not possible to understand how the books composed by the atheist evolutionists’ ideas claiming that all living things have randomly come into existence by chance, as a work of the nature were used as scientific proofs of evolution at court.     



Since the Evolution Theory is completely based on atheism, it is usual that the court is on favor of it. Because, the court deliberates on whether the case has a religious content or not rather than considering whether the theory content is scientific.



That the evidences and the results put forward are the work of a creator does not mean that it is not scientific. In contrast, if there is a work of art and if it is the product of a certain knowledge, will and power, it should definitely have a craftsman and a creator who plans it and makes it appear on the stage of life. 



That a state court of the United States’ adjudicated against the Intelligent Design Theory does not mean that the theory is not scientific. Actually, here it is focused on whether the theory implies the existence of a creator, instead of inspecting whether it is scientific or not. In one respect, through laws, they bestow a special favor on atheism under the name of science.  



That means: an answer is sought for the questions how the being things in the universe, especially human beings, emerged and who created them. Since the answers of those questions will have a religious content, that creation is not assigned to a creator but to chance and nature as the present Evolution Theory does under the shadow of laws. That is assigning a special position to atheism and irreligion through laws. In other words, the entirely atheistic and materialistic opinion stipulated by the positivist philosophy is accepted beyond question in advance. Worse still, evolution thought is not ever questioned, and what is more, it is accepted as scientific information beyond question. However, explaining and discussing how the living things came into existence is not scientific information but it is completely based on philosophy and metaphysics. In other words, that information put forward cannot be tested in laboratories. Therefore, introducing a philosophical thought as scientific information is wrong. 

Read 8.533 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register