Dear Dr. Miller:

I hope this finds you and yours well.

You recently responded to an internet posting of mine sent to you by Dr.
Barry Starr, who has subsequently posted your response to him on the
website.

I must say that your response was not at all like any dealings I've had with
you previously. And knowing a bit about you, I can only conclude that you
were not sent my ENTIRE post, but rather an excerpt wherein I commented on
remarks made by Walter Libby from his Radiocarbon dating Nobel Lecture,
December 12, 1960.

I should like to send you my ENTIRE post, as quite frankly, the majority of
your response dealt with issues never raised, suggested or solicited by me.

I hope you can find the time to perhaps acknowledge my COMPLETE posting and
revise your response.

I have included the post below, along with a URL to the website. You may
certainly respond back to me if you wish rather than posting directly on the
site.

Regards,

John E. Fiorentino

FIORENTINO RESEARCH
PO BOX 324
OAKHURST, NEW JERSEY 07755
USA

John,

Sure.

– Ken Miller

—–Original Message—–
From: John Fiorentino [mailto:johnfiorentino@optonline.net]
Sent: Sat 4/11/2009 9:10 PM
To: Miller, Kenneth Raymond
Subject: Re: Your response to Barry Starr

Well, since I agree, may I post this and indicate you never reviewed my
entire post?

Just a quick yes or no is ok.

John F.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Miller, Kenneth Raymond"
To: "John Fiorentino"
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: Your response to Barry Starr

Dear John,

I simply don't have time to comment in detail
on your post. Your friend asked me to comment
on this statement:

""For the evolutionists, try as they might, there is in fact no
accepted verifiable history beyond about 5,000 yrs.
Anything beyond that time is what scientists refer to as inference.""

I responded by pointing out that there are in fact
many scientifically-verifiable ways to date events
much older than 5,000 years. And, naturally, I
stand by that response.

Sincerely,

Ken Miller

Hi John!

I have waded through this long dia or trialogue and admire your attempts to
resolve very obtuse ideas.

As you know, my objective — from the beginning — has been to focus on
ORIGINS rather than on variation. Further, my purpose is to confirm that
SCIENCE cannot ever know ANYTHING about origins. It can extrapolate,
ruminate, speculate or pontificate — but there is no way for the scientific
method to be applied to conclusively prove how, when, why, or where
everything began. Darwin made some significant contributions to science
that I acknowledge when I declare that microevolution is a scientifically
valid theory to explain variation among species.

A feature film, WINGS OF WAX, is going to be produced based on my book,
SCIENCE BUT NOT SCIENTISTS. Its two-fold objective is to (a) successfully
remove all discussion of origins (naturalism and theism) from science –
placing them in appropriate fields like metaphysics, philosophy or religion,
and (b) provide a bridge of reconciliation between science and religion that
overcomes the needless and unfortunate hostility between them.

Thanks for always having a heart for Truth — Whom we both know and rightly
worship!

Vernon L. Grose, BS, MS, DSc.

I will try and respond to this mish-mosh of obfuscation as best as I can. Nothing like the old college football "pile-on." heh?…anyway, here goes:

But first, before I get a little "gnarly" let me say: I have communicated with Barry on numerous occasions, I like Dr. Starr, so this isn't personal, at least on my end.

I have communicated many times also with Ken Miller. I have corrected at least one of his misconceptions, which he even acknowledged, and which he was indicating to many in his various lectures across the country.

I don't know Jerry Coyne personally.

Now all that being said, and provided it passes the censors, let me devote much time and try and respond.

"I assume in your last comment you meant species? Or maybe speciation?"

No, I MEANT specious. I was, as I stated giving a one word assessment of my thoughts on evolution. For those not familiar with the word:

"SPECIOUS"

adjective

Definition: describes something that sounds true, but is actually false

Synonyms: misleading, incorrect, plausible, wrong, untrue, false, deceptive, ostensible, presumable

Antonyms: true, right, correct

Specious is derived from the Latin speciosus, which means "appearance." Specious describes things that appear to be true, but are really false.

I think the easiest way to continue is to paste the above responses from Dr. Starr, Ken and Coyne and put MY responses in the body of the text: in ( )

My point about both ways requiring evolution was predicated on an assumption that the existence of a Creator is based on faith. Creating a world stocked with all of the current living species would be an obvious act of a Creator and so to not believe would not be logical…(You don't believe it, do you?).. There isn't a lot of room for faith there…. (It still requires faith, because it can't be proved scientifically. And of course, it is constantly under assault by those who espouse evolution. The idea of creation is indeed faith based, so your logic fails you, I'm afraid)

If a Creator were to make a world where belief in that Creator required faith, then evolution would be one way to do it. That was my only point….(It MIGHT be "one way to do it" but obviously not the ONLY way. And since I don't believe evolution WAS the way, and yet I have "faith" in a creator, your logic again, fails)

I also sent out your comment (see below) to Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne to get their views on it. Here is your comment:

"For the evolutionists, try as they might, there is in fact no accepted verifiable history beyond about 5,000 yrs….(Dr. Miller agrees) Anything beyond that time is what scientists refer to as inference."… (Neither Starr, Miller or Coyne chose to acknowledge this fact) (Nor, I noticed did Barry relay to Miller and Coyne, that Libby made that assessment. Perhaps they would care to rebut him?)

And here are their reactions:

Ken Miller wrote:

While it is certainly true that the oldest recorded historical documents date to somewhere between 5,000 and 5,500 years, that applies only to written records of historical events…..(Miller is wrong here about just "written records" but I won't quibble on this point) Scientists regard the geologic ages, which date to several billion years, as accepted and verifiable, and astronomers would also agree that an age for the universe itself is now accepted and verifiable……(That's all very interesting, but irrelevant… (I may require a clarification as to what Ken meant by "geologic ages" in this context)….I never questioned either the age of the earth, or the universe. In fact, I indicated there is NO Biblical support for a "10,000 yr. old Earth")

The very fact that we can measure the speed of movement of distant stars and galaxies by empirical methods provides a verifiable method to determine the age of the universe,….(Irrelevant)…. and the same consideration applies to radiometric dating techniques for the ages of rocks…(irrelevant)…. and geologic formations…(again, I might need a little clarification, re: "geologic formations")

The most powerful of the radiometric dating techniques, which I explained on pp. 69-76 of my book “Finding Darwin’s God,”….(well, I don't have the book in front of me, so perhaps Ken should have been more specific)… make only one assumption — and that is that the laws of physics and chemistry are constant….(This is a little unclear. If Ken is indicating for instance in the case of radio-carbon dating, that everything remains "constant" then he is simply wrong, and should know better (see Libby)…… More to the point, the isotopic compositions of rocks are empirical, verifiable facts. Can these facts of composition be explained by the hypothesis that the planet is only a few thousand years old?….(I never said it was)….Absolutely not. In reality, the suggestion that the planet is that young can be tested and falsified by well-accepted scientific techniques…(irrelevant, and never suggested, nor solicited)

The scientific rigor of these techniques not only provides us with a direct, scientific way to measure the ages of these formations, it also provides us with an objective life history of the planet in the forms of the preserved remains of living organisms. The combination of geology with paleontology is testable empirical science in the very best sense, because it allows hypothesis testing and the possibility of empirical disproof……(Lots of words which don't address any of the issues I raised)

Sincerely,

Ken Miller

(Either Ken didn't read what I wrote, read something into what I wrote that wasn't there, missed the point entirely, or can't or didn't choose to address the issues. His constant hammering about the age of the earth demonstrates he lacks an understanding about what I conveyed re: creationism.)

Jerry Coyne

No verifiable history? Not that the first traces of life appear 3.5 billion years ago,…(Verification?)… and true cells about two billion years later..(verification?)… Not that there are dinosaurs that gave rise to birds about 150 million years ago,….(verification?)…. or whales from land animals about 50 million years ago?….(verification?)….. Not that the continents were all joined at one time, and separated via continental drift?…(OK)….. Or, for that matter, not that the Universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old..(Irrelevant)…. This person needs to think about what we mean by "verifiable",…(Well, honestly I don't know what he means by "verifiable" since he didn't verify anything. I DO know what I mean by verifiable, and what most people mean by the use of that term)… and also to read my book, Why Evolution is True,…(based on what I've seen so far, I'll take a pass on the book idea)….. to see all the VERIFIABLE and FALSIFIABLE evidence for evolution. If he doesn't change his mind, then he's immune to facts and not capable of being persuaded by evidence…..(I'll call that semi-ad hominem, if there is such a thing. The only thing Coyne does here is pontificate. He only makes thunderous statements, yet provides no back-up. He fails to comprehend, that his statements are indeed the issues in question, and the fact that HE says so, is simply meaningless fodder)

In essence, I think all of the above made my point, about those that espouse evolution needing a good understanding of what is in FACT meant by creationism. No one above addressed the issues I raised, but rather blathered on about points I never raised. I think Barry tried to respond as best he could. I think Ken missed the point entirely, and Coyne's "response" was "no response."

I do hope after all the time invested, someone will have the courtesy to respond to my response. I will be happy to relay to Ken anything he wishes to clarify all of this, if need be. The same goes for Barry. Coyne can continue his ride on the merry-go-round with Daffy Duck.

My point about both ways requiring evolution was predicated on an assumption that the existence of a Creator is based on faith. Creating a world stocked with all of the current living species would be an obvious act of a Creator and so to not believe would not be logical. There isn't a lot of room for faith there.

If a Creator were to make a world where belief in that Creator required faith, then evolution would be one way to do it. That was my only point.

I also sent out your comment (see below) to Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne to get their views on it. Here is your comment:

"For the evolutionists, try as they might, there is in fact no accepted verifiable history beyond about 5,000 yrs. Anything beyond that time is what scientists refer to as inference."

And here are their reactions:

Ken Miller wrote:

While it is certainly true that the oldest recorded historical documents date to somewhere between 5,000 and 5,500 years, that applies only to written records of historical events. Scientists regard the geologic ages, which date to several billion years, as accepted and verifiable, and astronomers would also agree that an age for the universe itself is now accepted and verifiable.

The very fact that we can measure the speed of movement of distant stars and galaxies by empirical methods provides a verifiable method to determine the age of the universe, and the same consideration applies to radiometric dating techniques for the ages of rocks and geologic formations.

The most powerful of the radiometric dating techniques, which I explained on pp. 69-76 of my book “Finding Darwin’s God,” make only one assumption — and that is that the laws of physics and chemistry are constant. More to the point, the isotopic compositions of rocks are empirical, verifiable facts. Can these facts of composition be explained by the hypothesis that the planet is only a few thousand years old? Absolutely not. In reality, the suggestion that the planet is that young can be tested and falsified by well-accepted scientific techniques.

The scientific rigor of these techniques not only provides us with a direct, scientific way to measure the ages of these formations, it also provides us with an objective life history of the planet in the forms of the preserved remains of living organisms. The combination of geology with paleontology is testable empirical science in the very best sense, because it allows hypothesis testing and the possibility of empirical disproof.

Sincerely,

Ken Miller

Jerry Coyne

No verifiable history? Not that the first traces of life appear 3.5 billion years ago, and true cells about two billion years later. Not that there are dinosaurs that gave rise to birds about 150 million years ago, or whales from land animals about 50 million years ago? Not that the continents were all joined at one time, and separated via continental drift? Or, for that matter, not that the Universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old. This person needs to think about what we mean by "verifiable", and also to read my book, Why Evolution is True, to see all the VERIFIABLE and FALSIFIABLE evidence for evolution. If he doesn't change his mind, then he's immune to facts and not capable of being persuaded by evidence.

If I had to sum up the theory of evolution, in one word, it would be:

SPECIOUS

Well, no they really don't.

At least not "macro-evolution."

The Bible states that all species will reproduce "after its kind."

There is NO evidence that any else has EVER happened. Nor that anything else EVER WILL happen.

I hope this helps.

What I do think is necessary though, is for both sides to understand the other. In other words those who believe in creation should have a good undertanding of the theory of evolution, and evolutionists should have a good understanding of creationism/ID, etc.

While I agree with Dr. Starr in his assessment of Dawkins, I would like to point out the following:

It is a major misconception that the majority of those who espouse creationism/ID believe the "Earth is 10,000 years old."

It is true there are some, referred to as "young Earth" creationists who make this claim.

However, there is absolutely no Biblical support for such a notion. The "age of the Earth" and the "age of man" have absolutely no connection either necessarily or by any other interpretation.

A proper reading of Genesis for example, gives no support to the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth. In fact it indicates quite the contrary, stating that the Earth was here for some time (not precisely specified) before the creation of life.

There is also an indication in that same book, of what might be perceived as two separate creative events, although this is not definitive.

I will not attempt to debate the fossil record, what may be perceived by some as the fossil record (dating of those remains etc.) or interpretation of what some may refer to as "transitional fossils."

I will try and give an understanding as to the age of man, which creationists generally accept as being approx. 6,000 yrs.

For the evolutionists, try as they might, there is in fact no accepted verifiable history beyond about 5,000 yrs. Anything beyond that time is what scientists refer to as inference.

Libby made this assessment: Willard F. Libby Radiocarbon dating
Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1960 (excerpts)

The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisors informed
us that history extended back only to 5,000 years. We had thought
initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to
30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished. You
read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is
20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient
ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the
First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has
been established.

I hope this helps.