# Ken Miller: A Textbook Biologist at the Dover Trial

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ken-miller-a-textbook-biologist-at-the-dover-trial/12410>\
**Category:** Peaceful Science\
**Tags:** Science, Design, Society\
**Created:** [November 10, 2020, 7:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ken-miller-a-textbook-biologist-at-the-dover-trial/12410 "2020-11-10T19:54:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2020, 10:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ken-miller-a-textbook-biologist-at-the-dover-trial/12410/11 "2020-11-10T22:56:35Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> Kenneth Miller mentions creationists aren’t interested in coprolites.

Yes that’s a bit overselling it I think. Clearly creationists are very self-interested.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> Great! Now prove that we weren’t front-loaded with design and weren’t not devolving slowly.

Disregarding your inappropriate use of the term “prove” in a scientific discussion, that has already been done. That hypothesis does not fit the data from comparative genetics at all, hence cannot be rationally maintained.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> You should be able to take Genetic Entropy apart and smash it.

Has already been done on this very forum, at length, multiple times.

I’ve tried to [argue it with you directly](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/creationism-christians-and-honesty/12338/176), but you ran away from the discussion.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> Maybe he should define which particular organism shouldn’t be there, so we can go find that for him and then he will have to concede 🙂

I invite you to go and find spiders, wasps, kangaroos, and crocodiles, in the Cryogenian. Take as much time as you need.

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> In Kenneth Miller’s mousetrap explanation, he said that the “subset of the parts is functional” - Great, that’s devolution too! Thanks for proving the point.

You seem confused about what Behe’s argument was, and what Miller’s response showed.

The concept of irreducible complexity was initially invoked by Behe to argue that it would be impossible for some complex structure to evolve if reduced versions of the structure didn’t have any function. But given that reduced versions of the structure do have function, this shows there really is a pathway through which the structure can evolve and remain functional throughout.

Obviously the fact that some structure can function in different ways even though parts of it are missing doesn’t show it’s “devolving”.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ken-miller-a-textbook-biologist-at-the-dover-trial/12410)._