Rating: 
Summary: Irreducible complexity's best friend?
Review: Is Ken Miller irreducible complexity's best friend? He uses the exact same arguments as Behe, except that instead of designing biochemical pathways, Miller's deity designs quarks. The picture Miller paints sounds like an argument from a creationist textbook. I do not like people talking about permanent barriers to understanding as does Miller. Maybe we don't know what indeterminacy means today, but my great great grandkids may in 2200. Not at this point in time doesn't mean never. To make matters worse, Miller condones the idea of purpose in the anthropic principle, another of neocreationism's pet ideas: God created the universe just as it is, with us in mind. This is the fruit of serious compromise folks. To accommodate the natural world and religion, Miller uses the same mental contortions as his adversaries the creationists and ID people, and he doesn't even seem to realize it. He's conceded far too much ground for me. He is no different than a creationist, and is not a friend of science.
Rating: 
Summary: An odd mix in a fine mind
Review: It is certainly reasonable to propose that acceptance of evolution as the means by which living things developed does not necessarily conflict with belief in some sort of higher being as the agent by which life was initiated. When Darwin chose the title "Origin of Species" he meant exactly that -- not the origin of life itself. In chapter fifteen he states it explicitly: "...science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life." Despite more than a century of scientific progress, that disclaimer remains substantially true today.Evolution does, however, conflict with many religious claims, including those in the Genesis narrative of the Judeo-Christian bible. It is widely agreed, and I enthusiastically concur, that no one has stated the scientific arguments against creationism and its intelligent design upgrade more effectively than Kenneth Miller. The first half of "Finding Darwin's God" brilliantly summarizes those arguments, and in doing so emphasizes the notion that there ought to be a better way. That is, there ought to be a non-fundamentalist religious viewpoint which is wholly compatible with biological evolution and the rest of science. Miller is determined to discover such a viewpoint and tell us how he did it. If one simply wants to avoid contradicting science, many paths are open to deistic constructs of the Einsteinian type, where god sets baseline parameters for nature but does not interfere with subsequent events or meddle in individual lives. But Miller isn't about to settle for that. He wants a loving, lovable, traditional, western-style supreme being. No substitutes, please. While reading about his passionate quest for a suitable candidate, I could not avoid the impression that what is presented as Darwin's god could more aptly be called Miller's god. The author finds his breakthrough in quantum mechanics and its assurance that atomic-scale uncertainty is absolutely unresolvable, even in principle. Here, claims Miller, is the foundation of free will and the perfect channel through which god can influence natural events or, perhaps, tweak human destinies. Quantum uncertainty forms a sort of firewall which may, if god so chooses, forever bar us from directly perceiving his influence on Earth. Well, what's wrong with such guesses? Nothing, really, except that like all religious proposals they constitute an arbitrary, speculative overlay on questions which science is quite capable of answering eventually, provided only that accessible answers exist. In the meantime, Miller is equipped as well as anyone alive to understand that without science he has no case, and that the aspects of his case which are intended to transcend science merely abuse it. I highly recommend this book for two reasons. First, because it is one of the best imaginable primers on the powerful evidence available to counter creationist claims of all flavors. Second, because it is an intriguing example of first-rate rational analysis oddly mixed with inconclusive religious conjecture in the mind of a skilled, intelligent, skeptical scientist.
Rating:
Summary: A Necessary Bridge
Review: I am a very science minded person, and for years have struggled with reconciling my christian upbringing with my scientific knowledge. Specifically, I found huge conflicts between evolution and creationism. This book doesn't really solve that conflict, but it does shine some light on the subject. I believe that this book does exactly what the title says it does, it finds a new way of interpreting the traditional view of god. Until I read this book, I had alot of trouble finding a rational way to believe in god. For anyone struggling with this issue I definantly recommend picking this book up. Also, for anyone simply interested in the evolution-creationism debate this book has a great deal of interesting examples and facts.
Rating: 
Summary: Why isn't this "Intelligent Design"?
Review: Ken Miller is a Brown University biologist who has tried to make a career out of challenging Intelligent Design theorists. I say "challenge" because Miller hasn't come close to even understanding, let alone rebuking, Intelligent Design theory. In this volume, it becomes apparent that Miller so poorly understands Intelligent Design that he should be dismissed from the debate summarily by both ID adherents and Darwinists. Why? Because his own solution to the Creation/Evolution controversy is, when all is said and done, INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Miller theorizes that God uses quantum mechanics to make life turn out the way He plans without resorting to miraculous interventions. While this theory of theistically-guided evolution might be unpalatable to Young Earth creationists like Ken Hamm and Henry Morris, and uneasy to Old Earth creationists like Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer who still like their Scripture on the literal side, it fits squarely within the Intelligent Design camp. One can imagine ID advocates like Michael Behe (Catholic), David Berlinski (Jewish), and Jeffrey M. Schwartz (Buddhist) putting forth precisely this argument as an explanation of the designer's mechanism - in fact, Schwartz put forth this exact argument regarding the development of the human brain in "The Mind and the Brain," and has intimated strongly that teleology via way of quantum processes is the driving force behind evolution in various interviews. (For those outside the ID debate, Jeffery M. Schwartz is the neurologist who revolutionized the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder and pioneered the use of brain imaging technologies in Psychiatry - in other words, Schwartz is a far more accomplished scientist than Miller. Schwartz was also humble enough to work in collaboration with an actual physicist on his theories, unlike Miller, who's speculating on areas far outside his field of expertise; but then, I suppose evolutionary biologists have taken their own press seriously and really think they do know everything. Neurologists can afford to be more gracious.) Reading "Darwin's God," I get the sense that Miller is actually an ID proponent playing a trick on the scientific establishment by writing a purportedly "Darwinian" book that really builds up the Intelligent Design theory it's supposed to tear down. Orthodox Darwinists also should not accept Miller as a defender of their "faith," because Miller's proposal marks a turn away from Naturalism toward metaphysics. Of course, it is inevitable that this shift will take place, because the revolutions in Physics and Cosmology must eventually spill over into biology. But trying to say that this turn of events is in the spirit of "Darwinism" is pure bunk. Miller should be more honest. He's an intelligent design advocate, not a Darwinist, and his energies'd be more usefully spent if he'd acknowledge the truth and go with it. But I suppose it'd be harder to maintain his good standing with his Brown colleagues if he did that.
Rating: 
Summary: A great book
Review: It would be a crime for any scientist with an open mind to religion, or any religious person with an open mind to science, not to read this book! Evolution is fact. But this fact does not rule out the existence of God. To think it does is simply a misunderstanding, which Miller clears up in this book. The book does not _prove_ that God exists. But it leaves the door open to the possibility or even likelihood. This "foot in the door" is invaluable to a scientist such as myself, to whom most religious argument seemingly denies provable science. Atheism would not be my first choice, but until reading this book it seemed the only informed, rational choice. If you've ever wanted to ask how a really, really smart and well-informed scientist can possibly believe in God, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Meaningful
Review: Miller's succinct prose and wealth of information and expertise add a heavy dose of reason to the discussion of evolution. More importantly, the author attempts to draw a correlation between this reason and the existence of irrational religion. Yes, God, according to Miller, exists in the gaps of science-- between the quanta of physics and the chance mutations of genetic material. But then, where else would God be? Humankind has all but delineated the existence of everything else and the gaps are all that remain. Kudos to Miller for such an artful discussion of the cold hard reality of science, and the optimistic rendering of the unknown.
Rating:
Summary: well written, intelligent, and thought-provoking
Review: Miller is an entertaining writer and addresses the creation/evolution conflict with humor and insight. While I don't quite agree with his conclusions, he nevertheless provides a thoughtful dissection of the material. I used this book as the fodder for an adult discussion group on religion and science. The book was well received and was an excellent launching pad for our discussions.
Rating:
Summary: distinct separate material creation means?
Review: The heart of the book is the last few chapters where he tries to show that the kind of rearguard, god-of-the-gaps reasoning is not the only path people of a biblical faith need take when confronting evolutionary theory. His idea is that evolution allows us to see the radical separation of god and his creation for what it really is; an act of love and a grant of true freedom to creatures. The universe is free from the manipulation of a supreme being, for evolution shows that life then consciousness (necessary for worship and to love god) evolved in a distinctly materialist fashion free from the miraculous. i hope he is right for the gaps available for bible literalists to hide god in are getting rarer with every discovery. Soon religion ought to switch to the winning side and be a part of the light of scientific discovery rather than fearing it as so many do currently. This book is a good start on this quest to realign religion alongside science rather than being such an adversary as the creationist would have it. To anyone with a heart felt commitment to both science and a biblical faith this book is an extraordinary find. Full of hope and faith it rises above most of this topic's dialogue to inspire and motivate the reader. Certainly a book worth moving to the top of the current reading pile. But i am afraid it will manage to turn off a lot of people since it takes science and faith seriously, and demands some intellectual exertion from it's readers, something people who want to hear comfortable and reassuring words don't normally do. If evolution bothers your faith then this is a good book to start with.
Rating: 
Summary: part excellent, part very poor
Review: I have mixed feelings about this book. The author, a professor of biology at Brown University, is a creationist in the tradition of Calvin College's Dr. Van Till. The 2nd half of the book (page 165+) is excellent and well worth the read. He does an excellent job covering the major problem of discrimination against Christians in universities and a good job defending a creation world view. Unfortunately, the first part of the book is irresponsible and is exactly why creationists are criticized as poor researchers. As long as such irresponsible works are produced this reputation will be hard to refute. One example is the claim that the retina is poorly designed because it is backwards (page 101). How did this foolish and irresponsible statement get past the reviewers? Did the book have any reviewers?? How could a Brown University professor publish such nonsense? The problem for many of us (such as those with blue, green, or light brown eyes) is that we get too much light! Only in medical school did I learn this (and now use sun glasses as much as possible when I am outside). I used to think those who routinely wore sun glasses were vain. Now I realize that they are smart and that this practice can reduce the likelihood of macular degeneration and cataracts, among other problems. ...The first part of the book should be rated a minus 10. Do not follow his advice! See your doctor for accurate information!
Rating:
Summary: A man who's done his homework
Review: This is excellent book that combines a comprehensive response to those who have attacked evolution in recent years with an account of one man's reconciliation between faith and being a scientist. He gives ample evidence of the information missing in arguments from those as varied as Bible literalists to men such as Michael Behe who get carried away with their own rhetoric without having done enough work to be sure of what they say. ... Dr. Miller believes that God has given us the freedom to live in a material world, for good or for evil. He goes farther along this line than I would go, but I can only admire his attempt to be explicit about how faith and science fit together fo him in contrast to the extremes of Bible literalist and those who use science to justify their atheism. I have read a variety of books on this subject in recent years. ... I think there is more information here in Dr. Miller's book except for discussions of linguistics and formal philosophy.
|
