3 comments

  1. Jeff Post author

    Some people have been confused about this video. I just want to go on record saying that I don’t support Ken Miller’s conclusions, but I find them fascinating. This is the kind of science that I want to see Creationists doing. Ken Miller in fact is a Christian, but his science on the origin of human life is very challenging to the Intelligent Design community.

    I want to hear some other people’s perspectives on this.

  2. Constance Masseyille

    I am a biochemist, a lawyer, and a conservative Southern Baptist in North Carolina. Ken Miller has the evolution issue down correctly. He is missing out by not being a Protestant, but he has nothing lacking on the assessment of the science of evolution. It is incredible that folks can’t see the capability of biological evolution on Earth with a belief in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as revealed in God’s Holy and Inerrant Word – The Bible. Truth isn’t always revealed in simple, literal language. Too bad we acknowledge that when reading many parts of the Bible, but develop a Pharisaic orthodoxy around a simple-minded reading of Genesis.

  3. Michael Carroll

    “Our biochemistry is about 97% the same as a mouse.

    Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.

    Human Cytochrom ‘C’ is closest to that of a sunflower.

    Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.

    Human skin is closest to that of a pig.”

    Explain to me, how this fits in with primates???
    With all due respect, i think his aim with “god set it up that way” was meant to be an insult of some kind. He sounds very passionate about this subject and with passion comes biases. While i’m not researched in anyway on this specific argument, generally speaking i’m convinced these people only look at their “evidence” with one prospective; 1st proves evolution or doesn’t.. They don’t even consider any other possibility of what it could mean..Taken at face value because i don’t know anything about the human gnome and could be missing key things due to pure ignorance. Start of video; You had plenty of time to research and form a “theory” on something then proceed to drop this well researched project on someone and expect them to refute you on the drop of dime?? I dont think you need a PHD to say; you should allow someone to try refute your findings within a respectable time frame. That seems like the most objective thing to do. Although i think this would show insecurity on “Ken’s” part. (To have holes punched in something your just presenting would be kind embarrassing. or was it arrogance?) Rest of video: Sounds like its not an exact match, “within 15 bases”, and something about Telomeres not belonging? The choice of “correspond with” instead of something like is “exactly like”, implicates some differences as well?.. But i could be completely wrong.. “no reason, no rhyme” sounds like he is insulting the bible as well. Would be very interested in hearing a completely objective view on these findings..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *