Atheism is not about self-congratulation. It is about self-reliance. You are correct: by definition, "there can be no higher understanding than ours" -- by us. It is our place to understand what we can. And as the years progress, we understand more and more. A drop in the bucket, perhaps, but movement in the right direction nevertheless. Why the preoccupation with an "understanding" that we will never comprehend? Why not leave such (illusory) divine understanding to "god?" If "he" won't bother to explain, then why not just go about the life you understand and leave "him" to his own devices? Since we can never understand the reason "he" does what "he" does, is it not superfluous to pray to "him," or worship "him?" Such activity presumes some understanding, does it not? You are assuming an if-then relationship that, by your definition, you cannot even begin to comprehend.
His problem is in the reasoning for his debate. Miller doesn't disagree with Behe that we are created, just that Behe's data is not proof of design in Miller's work. If you will note, he states Miller disagrees with Behe on irreducible at the micro biology level, but acknowledges possible design at the quantum level. Miller is quoted in the interview"He then proceeded to explain to me that there are essentially three ways to account for the uncanny set of physical constants that make our universe (and life in it) possible: a) it is the result of a willful creator;
it is painfully obvious that you did not listen to the miller lecture if you think he believes in biblical creation.
I'm just referring to what Miller told Pigliucci as stated in the article, if the two don't jive, sorry. Again, I find Miller's rational flawed, as the parts of the flagellum are still constructed in order from smaller protein blocks. Too coincidental, imho, to be a random order. No I'm not a biochemist, but I'll think for myself.
do you think it would harm you in any way to actually listen to what a respected cell biologist had to say on the subject?