Rating: 
Summary: A Microscropist Looks at Creationism
Review: Darwin said true knowledge comes from studying both the Bible and the natural world, so Miller's book is divided into two equal halves, one for science, one for religion. Miller really shines in the first half of the book, directly confronting three current, popular, creationist ideas. Miller sets up the conflict (and justifies the religious, second half of the book) by arguing that the creation-evolution dispute is largely the result of extremists in both science and religion PARADOXICALLY accepting the extremist position of the other side! Science extremists say science has determined that life has no purpose; religious faithful accept that position; and that leads them to reject science altogether! Religious extremists say God and evolution are incompatible; scientists accept that; and that leads them to reject religion! So both sides' erroneous acceptance of extremist arguments of the other side insures continued conflict. Correct or not, that analysis is guaranteed to enliven any Bible study or faculty lounge conversation! Chapter 2 describes some entertaining examples (using beer cans!), of how scientists can obtain reliable knowledge of both ancient events and distant events without either personally observing them or reproducing them in a lab. Miller also highlights the importance of biogeography, showing that fossil sequences are in an orderly progression, not just chronologically, but also geographically, with similar species close to each other in both time AND space. The Darwinian inference is obvious! Chapter 3 reviews young-Earth creationism (YEC). Miller uses coprolites (fossilized feces) to show that YEC's literally don't know doo-doo. He also reports brazen dishonesty on the part of a prominent creationist who uses Earth's magnetic field as young-Earth evidence. Miller also points out that none of the 20-plus persistent nuclides with a half-life less than 80 million years still exists on Earth. Not a single one! Over twenty half-lives would be needed to remove all traces of such nuclides, so the only possible conclusion is that Earth must be AT LEAST 1.6 billion years old! YEC's often dismiss radiometric dating as being subject to contamination, but Miller shows how geologists avoid those problems with some ingenious cross-checks. Chapter 4 discusses the Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) advocated by Phillip Johnson, a lawyer with no formal, post-secondary science education. Up against a science Ph.D., Johnson is quickly outclassed. Johnson's version of IDC is based largely on his interpretation of punctuated equilibrium (PE) in the fossil record. PE means, ". . . change is not continuous; . . . [rather] each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (PE is a key concept, so keep the definition in mind!) Johnson argues: 1) all species appear in the fossil record suddenly, i.e., in a punctuated, non-Darwinian manner, thus disproving Darwinism; and 2) since Darwinism is wrong, fossil sequences must be interpreted as the product of a Grand, Overall Design (GOD). But Miller shows that Johnson is totally wrong. Miller examines the fossil record of several interesting species, showing how they merge into each other, chronologically AND geographically. Considering the sheer number of species throughout geologic history, virtually all of them following the same pattern of chronologic and geographic progression, the conclusion is inescapable. Arguing that God individually created each one of the millions upon millions upon more millions of species AND put every last one of them in a chronologic and geographic order consistent with common descent is more than a little hard to believe! By the way, remember the definition of PE above? It comes from a very famous book by a very famous author: The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin! Yes, that's right. Darwin introduced the concept of PE 100 years BEFORE Gould and Eldredge, he just used different vocabulary. So Johnson's arguing that PE is inconsistent with Darwin is simply ludicrous! Regardless of who came up with PE first, Johnson still argues that evolution lacks an adequate mechanism to make punctuated changes. Two fossil sequences involving very rapid change show a rate of change of .04 darwins for horses, and .06 darwins for Triceratops. (A "darwin" is a rate of change that affects a given feature by a factor of 2.718 in 1,000,000 years.) So Johnson's argument essentially is that species cannot change through natural means at a rate of .04 darwins. Oh, really? Change rates of 45,000 darwins have actually been observed recently in living species, making Johnson's argument wrong by a factor of up to 10 million! Case closed! Next case! Chapter 5 examines Michael Behe's irreducible complexity (IC). Behe says structures like the eukaryotic cilium could not possibly have evolved, because their radial 9+2 structure is IC, which means that if a single piece is missing, then the system will not work at all. But Behe, a biochemist, must not know too much about cell biology. Culex mosquitoes have a 9+1 structure, which works just fine; Anguilla sperm have 9+0, which works just fine; some protozoa have 6+0; one protozoan has 3+0; and several other organisms have free form structures with no radial arrangement at all! And they all work - just fine! So a gradual series of simpler structures can indeed lead step-by-step to a final, allegedly IC, structure. It's not impossible at all! Under Miller's microscope, the flaws of young-Earth creationism, Johnson's intelligent design, and Behe's irreducible complexity are revealed and described in detail. Miller's religious opinions in the second half of the book are no more persuasive than others I've read, though his argument that quantum physics indeterminacy invalidates reductionist, determinist philosophies is very intriguing, and possibly very helpful in rebutting both scientistic and creationist arguments that modern science eliminates purpose and free will. Some earlier, creationist reviewers just don't get it. One wrote that Miller failed to show that Catholicism and evolution were compatible. Pope John Paul II's public support for evolution (page 170) wasn't persuasive enough on the Catholicism issue??? This review gives just a hint of the rich detail in Miller's book. Buy the book to see the rest for yourselves!
Rating: 
Summary: Lucid, balanced guide to the challenges of science for faith
Review: This book is a "must read" for anyone interested in a thoughtful analysis both of the most popular approaches for defending a belief in creation and also for those that oppose a belief in creation in light of the findings of modern science. Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and a committed Christian (although the book stresses the shared convictions of the major Western religions, rather than adopting a sectarian approach). Miller considers first the arguments of young-earth creationists (Whitcome and Morris, Duane Gish, et al.) and answers these with an avalanche of scientific evidence. He then examines in two chapters the claims of old-earth creationists, especially Philip Johnson (who stresses a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record) and Michael Behe (who identifies what he considers are "irreducably complex" biochemical machines in the cell). In his careful analysis of these views, Miller helps the reader appreciate how both approaches are, in effect, misguided attempts to defend creation with a "God of the gaps." Each offers examples which, the authors hope, defy explanation by modern science. This (temporary) inability of modern science is then taken as evidence in support of the work of the Creator at that point. Miller shows the consistent failure of this mode of argumentation in the past and cites evidence published since the appearance of Johnson's and Behe's writings, which, unfortunately for them, fills in their hoped-for gaps. One of the greatest dangers of a God of the gaps argument, Miller notes, is that each time science succeeds in filling one of these alleged gaps its success is misconstrued by atheistic scientists as proof that God must not exist. Miller turns his attention in the second half of his book to a refutation of the equally deficient views against creation that have been advanced by atheistic scientists. In the end Miller affirms the wisdom of resting one's faith in a God who is the God of the stuff in between the gaps - whose handiwork is best seen in facts and qualities of the universe which are well known to science, rather than in those which are as yet undiscovered. Although he strongly affirms evolution, natural law, and chance, he sees these as means which God used for accoplishing His creative intention and safeguarding the genuine freedom and independence of His Creation. Miller affirms that the existence of the universe is not self-explanatory. Although he recognizes that the convictions of faith cannot be proven absolutely, he considers faith in the Creator to be reasonable and supported by such evidences as the anthropic principle. He also favors the possibility that God may utilize quantum indeterminacy and chaos as subtle means for interacting with His creation.
Rating: 
Summary: Contains many major mistakes
Review: Although this book has much good material, it contains many major mistakes. For example,research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must be of the "inverted" design. Miller claims that this design is suboptimal because the photoreceptors are on the inside curvature of the retina, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors The photoreceptors (rods and cones) MUST face AWAY from the front of the eye in order to be in contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supply it with blood. The verted design claimed by Miller to be best would not place the photoreceptors in contact with their source of nutrition (the choroid). This is a serious problem because rods and cones need an enormous amount of energy for repair and they completely replace themselves at a very high rate (about every 7 days or so), due to phototoxicity, and other damage. Miller's design simply would not allow the rods and cones to function because of their extremely high rate of metabolism. Furthermore, placing the neural components of the retina in front of the photoreceptors does not produce any kind of optical handicap, since the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light, so very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was near-perfect transparency.
Rating:
Summary: God is in the details
Review: Miller's book is divided into two equal halves, one for science, one for religion. Miller really shines in the first half of the book, directly confronting three current, popular, creationist ideas. Miller starts out proposing that the creation-evolution dispute is largely the result of extremists in both science and religion PARADOXICALLY accepting the extremist position of the other side. In other words, science extremists say science shows that life has no purpose; religious faithful accept that as an accurate description of science; and that leads them to reject science altogether. Similarly, religious extremists say God and evolution are incompatible; scientists accept that; and that leads them to reject religion. So each side's erroneous acceptance of extremist arguments of the other side insures continued conflict. Correct or not, that proposal is guaranteed to enliven any Bible study or faculty lounge conversation :-) Chapter 2 describes some entertaining examples (using beer cans!) showing how scientists can obtain reliable knowledge of both ancient events and distant events without either personally observing them or reproducing them in a lab. Miller also highlights the importance of biogeography, showing that fossil sequences are in an orderly progression, not just chronologically, but also geographically, with similar species close to each other in both time AND space. The Darwinian inference is obvious. Chapter 3 reviews young-Earth creationism (YEC). Miller uses coprolites (fossilized feces) to show that YEC's literally don't know squat. He also reports brazen dishonesty on the part of a prominent creationist who uses the Earth's magnetic field as young-Earth evidence. Miller also presents a very simple argument showing how the absence of the 20-plus persistent nuclides with a half-life less than 80 million years shows that Earth must be AT LEAST 1.6 billion years old. This is a disaster for YEC, of course. YECs often dismiss radiometric dating as being subject to contamination, but Miller shows how geologists avoid those problems with some ingenious cross-checks. Chapter 4 discusses the Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) advocated by Phillip Johnson, whose version of IDC is based largely on his interpretation of punctuated equilibrium (PE) in the fossil record. PE means, ". . . change is not continuous; . . . [rather] each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (PE is a key concept, so keep that definition in mind for just a moment, please.) Johnson argues: 1) all species appear in the fossil record suddenly, i.e., in a punctuated manner, thus disproving Darwinian gradualism; and 2) since Darwinism is wrong, fossil sequences must be interpreted as the product of a Great, Overall Design (GOD). But Miller examines the fossil record of several interesting species, showing how they merge into each other, chronologically AND geographically. Considering the sheer number of species throughout geologic history that follow the same pattern of chronologic and geographic progression, the conclusion is inescapable. Arguing that God individually created each one of the millions upon millions of species AND just happened to put every last one of them in a chronologic and geographic order consistent with common descent is more than a little hard to believe! By the way, remember the definition of PE above? It comes from a very famous book by a very famous author: "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin! Yes, that's right. It was Darwin himself who introduced the concept of PE, 100 years BEFORE Gould and Eldredge. He just used different vocabulary. So Johnson's argument that PE is inconsistent with Darwin is simply stupid. Johnson also argues that evolution lacks an adequate mechanism to make the punctuated changes found in the fossil record. For example, the fossil sequences for horses show a rate of change of .04 darwins, and the fossil sequences for Triceratops show a rate of change of .06 darwins. A "darwin" is a rate of change of 2.718 in 1,000,000 years, and .04 or .06 darwins is a very high rate of change to be found in the fossil record; so Johnson's argument essentially is that species cannot change through natural means at those rates, and that intelligent intervention must have been involved instead. But Miller points out that rates of up to 45,000 darwins are ROUTINELY observed in living species, making Johnson's argument wrong by a factor of up to 10 million! Chapter 5 examines Michael Behe's irreducible complexity (IC). Behe says IC systems could not possibly have evolved step-by-step, because if a single piece is missing from an IC system, the system will not function at all. Behe identifies several allegedly IC systems, such as the bacterial flagellum and the cilia, which he says will not function at all without all of their parts; but Miller very effectively points out that every single one of Behe's allegedly IC systems is found in nature in a reduced form, and that every single one of those reduced forms still functions just fine! So what doesn't function here is Behe's IC! Miller's religious opinions in the second half of the book are no more persuasive than others I've read, though his argument that quantum physics indeterminacy invalidates reductionist, determinist philosophies is very intriguing, and possibly very helpful in rebutting both scientistic and creationist arguments that modern science eliminates purpose and free will. This review gives just a hint of the rich detail in Miller's book. Under Miller's microscope, the flaws of young-Earth creationism, Johnson's intelligent design, and Behe's irreducible complexity are revealed and described in detail. Buy the book to see the rest for yourselves!
Rating: 
Summary: Best of Type
Review: I have been intrigued by the on-going debate regarding evolution. As a result, over the last year I have read a range of books on the issue starting with Darwin's Origin of Species, and, including works by Pennock, Dawkins, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others. Of recent works defending the theory of evolution Finding Darwin's God is the best that I have come across for a popular audience. In the early portion of the book Miller provides a good and succinct case for evolution (something I find Dawkins incapable of). The author then addresses several of the different challenges to evolution (Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Johnson and Behe). He is most successful against the YEC, but his responses to the others challengers, if not decisive, are well articulated. A point that is particularly well done is the discussion with respect to why evolution is such an emotionally charged issue. I agree with Miller that one of the causes of this is the extreme extrapolations atheists such as Dawkins, Gould et al make from what at the end of the day is a limited scientific theory (albeit an interesting one). For those unfamiliar with this aspect of the discussion, many "popularizers" of evolution attempt to use the theory to argue for materialism/determinism and eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. In the second part of the book Miller goes on to argue that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. In doing so, he touches on a range of scientific and theological issues including: deism, quantum theory, cosmology and apologetics. This part of the book was not as well done. I support Miller's general contentions but, believe that he tried to accomplish too much and got out of his intellectual depth. Although it had some good points the second half was repetitive and a bit disjointed. I will just offer a few comments on some of these latter arguments before closing. First, Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the word nor free will are contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy (an excellent collection of essays on various philosophical questions). Additionally, similar to other scientific fields much work is on-going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area could prove to be methodological. Second, Miller's handling of cosmology and its theological ramifications are weak. Readers seeking a better understanding of this issue can seek one of Bill Craig's many excellent works in this area. Third, it is not surprising that the author as a scientist approaches the issue from a classic modernist standpoint (i.e. science is the only source of truth). Much fascinating discussion has taken place around this issue and, some significant challenges have been raised by postmodern thinkers. For an introduction to postmodern philosophical work Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism is simply outstanding. Finally, the author gives to much credence to the threat evolution poses to religion. In contemporary apologetics the argument from design plays a limited role and, when used it revolves around the fundamental relationships in the universe not evolution (Miller touched on this issue). All but the most literal of Christians (YEC types) do not see evolution and a Christian worldview as incompatible. In conclusion, good book, well worth the money. For those exploring the evolution argument I recommend it along with Behe's Darwins's Black Box and a work by Philip Johnson such as The Wedge of Truth (to get a fell for both sides).
Rating:
Summary: Resolving the false dichotomy between science and religion
Review: With no great understanding of the all issues on either side, I've always believed there can be no fundamental contradiction between valid science and valid religion, evolution and materialist determinism notwithstanding. AT LAST, a knowledgeable, well-informed evolutionary scientist who is also a Christian agrees, and has provided an OUTSTANDING discussion !! Miller is a well-recognized biology educator and text book author, and he provides exceptionally clear explanation of evolution science, separating FACTS from theory and issues. Along the way he gives NO quarter to "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", and pretty much demolishes those ideas, while showing understanding and respect for the motivations of their advocates. He also criticizes other biologists who he thinks carry evolutionary theories into inappropriate areas, or who take an extremist view of the implications of evolution for belief in God. He seems critical (though appreciative) of Jay Gould's observations of the seemingly sporadic nature of the fossil record, with large numbers of species appearing in short spurts of geologic time----meaning a few hundred thousand years---followed by long periods, millions of years, with no new species appearing. Gould labeled it "punctuated equilibrium," and for awhile it evidently caused some churning and controversy among biologists. Miller seems to delight in referring to the idea as "punk eek." Creationists jumped on it as evidence of "sudden" appearance of species and evidence of special creation, evidently by misunderstanding the meaning of a "short spurt" in geologic terms. Miller makes the point that it is the extremists of both sides, science and religion, who have, perhaps erroneously, agreed on the following assumption: "If the origins of living organisms can be explained in purely material terms, then the existence of God is disproved." The second half of his book is devoted to examining whether that assumption is true. Obviously he believes it is not, and he makes a compelling case that evolution and religious belief are NOT incompatible. He is a materialist, meaning that all events and actions have material causes and explanations, but does NOT believe it implies that everything is predetermined, or that it precludes the idea of value or meaning in life. He sees the natural world with it's orderly, materialistic laws, as consistent with the existence of a creation designed by a Creator to allow randomness and free will. From this and other readings, especially the PBS series on evolution and its web site, it appears to me that the controversy between religion and science is greatly overblown by minority extremists of both sides. Reasonable Christians see the Bible as poetry, legend, allegory, history as seen thousands of years ago, and especially as inspired revelation of the relationship between God and man----but certainly not as literal descriptions of events, and CERTAINLY not as science. Reasonable scientists, on the other hand, see great mystery in the universe and in life, and uncertainties that can NEVER be explained or resolved by science. All the natural laws and universal constants seem uniquely, specifically oriented to allow the eventual evolution of intelligent beings like homo sapiens, a fact that some have labeled the "anthropomorphic principle." (Of course they are---If they weren't, we couldn't exist!) Quantum theory has shown inherent uncertainty at the level of atomic particles, and it leads to the existence of randomness and free will---certainly leaving intellectual room for the POSSIBLE existence of a supreme being that operates in accordance with natural laws, but who cares about values and meaning!! You will need to read the book for an explanation----a brief paraphrase is NOT possible! Miller believes his view to be entirely consistent with Darwin's own, and closes with the following beautiful quotation from the last page of "The Origin of Species:" "There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved." Miller's book is OUTSTANDING, and covers religion/science issues in a very interesting way. Strongly recommend this book!!
Rating:
Summary: The ultimate last stand?
Review: Kenneth Miller may have achieved some level of immortality with this book. In erecting the ultimate redoubt in defence of the idea of a deity, he's built a structure with elements of "hard" science cemented with almost heartwarming personal experience. Miller is in the tradition of rear guard actions Christians have staged in response to science since Galileo. The pattern is familiar: researchers disclose another of nature's secrets, and the faithful respond: "O.K., that's how THAT works, but you can't explain . . . [whatever]. Therefore, God must be responsible for [whatever]." As each "whatever" is revealed as being neither divinely created or controlled, a new barricade is erected and the process repeated. What he achieves, however, is an expression of personal faith of value only to himself. This Miller's tale begins with a frank admission of the religious indoctrination of his childhood. His parish priest asserted that "only God can make a flower." Miller's education as a biologist revealed that flowers make flowers and how evolution brought that about. For Miller, however, learning about evolution didn't lead him to discard his deity, as in Darwin's case. But the sort of god he can accept differs from the one portrayed in his early years. He's able to accept what scientists bring to light in the way of Nature's processes without losing faith. His real target here is dogmatics; the Christian "creationists" who attack Darwin as an enemy of faith. Miller's defends Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection by confronting expressive adversaries. Well-known anti-Darwin exponents as Henry Morris, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe have their arguments carefully scrutinized, assessed and refuted. In each case, these advocates have distorted the image Miller's god wants to convey. He views their pictures of a god as a "charlatan," "magician," or "mechanic"; unwarranted and mistaken images. Christian creationists bind and restrict their deity in ways that deny human will, leaving us in an unsuitable robotic role. Instead, Miller contends that god's plan is to free intelligent humans to pursue nature's wonders; research that will reveal a novel concept of god. He then takes up the non-theists, who are clearly more intellectually challenging. Titling this chapter "The Gods of Disbelief" is pretty heavy irony, but Miller wants to portray E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin and Daniel C. Dennett as dogmatists. Educated dogmatists, but still too fixed in their thinking for his liking. Having found a god, Miller wants these bright scholars to shed their dogmatism to follow him along a scientifically enlightened path. Miller's god resides in Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers": the basic forces binding the cosmos. These constants are so finely tuned that tiny fluctuations wouldn't allow the universe, and us, to exist. Miller argues that the reason for this narrow equilibrium is us - human beings who have evolved to discover these forces and the god they represent. The cosmic forces permitted the creation of stars, planets and finally, life. He argues that we are the inevitable, if delayed, purpose of creation - created to find god through physics. Miller spends some time discrediting the idea of deism. In deism, a deity kick-starts the universe, then sits back to watch events unfolding. This concept keeps a deity at arm's length, giving humans free rein in explaining Nature. Deism was professed mainly by intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire who resented the traditional vengeful god. Their deity set a basic moral framework, then allowed humans the power to determine how to apply it to society. As an idea focussing on individuals but not community, deism never became widespread. Certainly there was no organizational element, and left priests and ministers "out of the loop." Along with the rest of the population. In the final analysis, however, Miller's faith espouses an updated form of deism. Researchers such as Dawkins, Lewontin and others that he represents as seeking an "absolute materialistic" explanation of the universe and life must necessarily fail. Their failure is manifested in the one area research cannot reveal - the state and position of subatomic particles. "The ultimate mastery of even the tiniest bit of matter in the universe will always elude us." [p.209] This, in his mind, is the sure sign of an Originator who set the conditions resulting in human evolution and intelligence. Miller has merely updated Jefferson by explaining the findings of many researchers since the latter's time. The new deity Miller proposes remains the cosmic clock-winder of the 18th Century. The issue posed by this book is not whether a deity exists. Miller is at some pains throughout to show nothing "proves" there's a god "out there." The real question is why an intelligent, articulate scientist should feel the need to sanction such a phantom in the face of all logic. E.O. Wilson wrote, "The enduring paradox of [faith] is that so much of its substance is demonstrably false, yet it remains a driving force in all societies." That is the enduring question and one can only wish Miller might put his abilities to addressing it. Miller's title reflects Darwin's distress at Asa Gray's discomfort over whether evolution denied his god. Miller, too, is distressed. As a scientist he responds to Wilson's paradox with yet another redoubt, this one built of unmeasureable subatomic particles. Like the earlier Deism, this deity is far distant and offers little comfort. Perhaps if the money pouring into churches was put to answering Wilson's dilemma, that deity can finally be put aside and humans can find ways of comforting each other instead of committing harm in the name of faith. If Darwin/Miller's god made the universe to evolve our intelligence, let's put that aptitude to work for our benefit, not for some ephemeral spirit without the ability to contribute to our survival as a species.
Rating:
Summary: Contains many major mistakes
Review: Although this book has much good material, it contains many major mistakes. For example,research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must be of the "inverted" design. Miller claims that this design is suboptimal because the photoreceptors are on the inside curvature of the retina, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors The photoreceptors (rods and cones) MUST face AWAY from the front of the eye in order to be in contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supply it with blood. The verted design claimed by Miller to be best would not place the photoreceptors in contact with their source of nutrition (the choroid). This is a serious problem because rods and cones need an enormous amount of energy for repair and they completely replace themselves at a very high rate (about every 7 days or so), due to phototoxicity, and other damage. Miller's design simply would not allow the rods and cones to function because of their extremely high rate of metabolism. Furthermore, placing the neural components of the retina in front of the photoreceptors does not produce any kind of optical handicap, since the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light, so very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was near-perfect transparency.
Rating:
Summary: An Opening for God in an Indeterminate Universe
Review: This is in many ways a fascinating book. In it, Kenneth Miller argues that the very contingency of the universe allows for the existence of a personal God. I can go most of the way with him on this, but not the whole way. Miller is absolutely correct in the chapters where he pretty well demolishes the young earth creationists, the old earth creationists and the intelligent design creationists. I have seen very few books (notable those of Pennock such as "Tower of Babel") with a more closely argued case against the creationists (or Intelligent Design theorists as some now characterize themselves). I also am impressed with Miller's grasp of the contingency of the development of life. While Stephen Jay Gould may have gotten the Burgess shale fauna wrong, I think that he was quite right about the contingency of the evolution of life on this planet. There is no a priori reason to believe as some (notably Gould's béte noire Simon Conway Morris) that humans (or something like them) would be the result of every evolutionary history. Miller to his credit not only admits, but also embraces the concept of contingency, while noting that Gould did not invent the idea. He also, unfortunately in my view, embraces the strong anthropic principle, which implies that the universe has such favorable conditions for life that it must have been created with life, including intelligent life, in mind, despite contingency. I see no real scientific evidence for this. However I will be the first to admit that I cannot rule it out completely. Unlike true believers in creationism or scientific determinism I just do not know for certain! At the same time I agree with Miller that one cannot simply explain religion away as either a now unnecessary adaptation (as E. O. Wilson does) or as a result of the evolution of the "mental modular" construction of the brain (as Steven Pinker does). Miller notes, correctly I believe, that such an argument could be turned against science. After all are not E. O. Wilson and Steven Pinker only doing what their genes tell them to do when writing such ideas? How can you trust either their views on the subject or those of creationists, who struggle to fit literal reality into the Bible's obvious contradictions? Thus, like Miller, I am not happy with the out and out atheism of Richard Dawkins and several other evolutionary determinists. I do not share Miller's exact belief in God, but I do agree with him that there is no proof that God does not exist (although I doubt that any god would be necessarily the Jehovah of the Bible). I (for what it is worth) in fact agree most with Buddhism that the existence of a god or gods is not an answerable question. The most important question for a human being in this view is "How ought I to live?" That said, the antipathy of such evolutionists as Dawkins and Dennett toward any religious view only exacerbates the rather damaging war between fundamentalists and science and often alienates moderate believers. When you cannot prove what you believe to be true it is best to remain humble and not insist on adherence by everybody else (this goes, I think, for both the Biblical literalists and scientific determinists, who, like far right-wing and far left-wing politicians resemble each other in the structure of their respective dogmas). However one views it, Miller has written a very thought-provoking volume. It puts in question both religious fundamentalist literalism and ultra-reductionist determinism. At the same time it allows us to embrace the indeterminate mystery that is this remarkable universe in which we live.
Rating:
Summary: Top-Notch
Review: The author makes a airtight case for evolution and a slightly less convincing one for the truth of the Christian religion. Like the author, I happen to believe in both. The book is well worth reading and re-reading.
| 
