Rating: 
Summary: It's very stimulating, but has many faults
Review: I wholly agree with Frederick Crews's assessment of the book: the first half of the book "constitutes the most trenchant refutation of the newer creationism to be found anywhere. Yet when Miller then tries to drag God and Darwin to the bargaining table, ... he proves to be just another 'God of the Gaps' creationist." NY Review of Books, 10/4/01 and 10/18/01The other reviewers explained well many of the central issues in the book, so I will focus on some of the faults. Even so, I found this book very stimulating, and it brought up a lot of important questions for me. Considering how many creationists there are, I think this is a book that should be more widely read and discussed. Belief is central to Miller's view of religion. I point this out not to discredit his religious ideas as merely belief, but because this is, in my opinion, one of the major downfalls of his argument. He has a strong faith in both the power of science and in the truth of his religion, but he would be better served in making his case to skeptics--of both science and of religion--if he were more skeptical and critical himself. He grants too much for many people, and this limits the applicability and appeal of much of what he has to say. He explores the boundaries of science and religion in order to limit and thus fortify each, but without dividing them into wholly different spheres. Miller embraces this critical attitude with regard to, for example, the special creation of species. However, this approach largely disappears in the last third of the book, which deals with his own beliefs. He makes statements such as: "A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense.... But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense." This type of approach is not helpful in a dialogue between differing viewpoints, or to any kind of rational dialogue. If he is to allow this approach to his own beliefs, it seems that he cannot argue against beliefs which differ from his. As soon as beliefs are questioned, it brings up the issue of the basis for faith. Are his beliefs based on authority? tradition? Or on experience? experiments? reasoning? The most original and daring part of the book comes toward the end, where he argues that quantum indeterminancy puts an absolute limit on what we can know. He connects this with the role of God in his beliefs, and shows how this could allow God to intervene in the world without violating the laws of nature. This is his attempt to avoid the two extremes of a mechanistic, deterministic universe and a lawless, chaotic universe. He wants to preserve human freedom, since his theological views are dependent on people being able to choose to worship God, but also to preserve confidence in science, which assumes an intelligible, logical world. He sees it as a testament to the wisdom of God that He could make a universe with this sort of feature built in. However, there are many confusions in his discussion of quantum effects. He mixes up common definitions of chance and lack of information with the rigorous ideas of indeterminacy that have been developed in quantum physics. Even where he tries to apply indeterminacy to a specific process, mutations in DNA, his discussion is incorrect. Another weakness stems from his contradictory views of science. Sometimes he points out that science is tentative, is open to new discoveries, changes in ideas, and that its ultimate basis is in empirical findings. But most of the time he asserts a confident realist view of science, in which he says that we understand the world "as it really is," and professes a faith in science to answer questions about the natural world. His discussion of what science can and cannot explain also contains a weak link. For example, when talking about the virgin birth, he says that science can explain natural events, but not miracles. However, it is not clear what is the distinguishing feature between these two types of events. It seems we are left with the circular definition that natural events are those explainable by science, and miraculous events are those that are not. He points out how many things, such as the burning of the sun, were once regarded as supernatural and mysterious, and believers in God used this in order to try to bolster their arguments for God. But this was eventually explained adequately by science, and there is no indication that any natural events are beyond the pale of science. This is why he must make the case that quantum indeterminacy puts an absolute limit on our knowledge, because otherwise people might come to explain naturalistically his mechanism for the action of God in the universe. Miller points out many times the problems with staking your view of God on something unexplainable or miraculous about the world. He says, "I find it puzzling and disappointing that so many would have pinned their religious hopes on the inability of science to explain the natural world." The only thing that saves Miller from a completely overt contradiction here is his division between natural and miraculous events, but this division is never explained or justified. Even so, Miller's stance is itself puzzling and disappointing. The only place left for miracles is in individual, unique events--exactly the kind of thing science is not good at investigating. In so far as science relies upon repeatability of experiments for verification, if an event happens only once, and leaves no distinguishing traces, it is hard to pin down scientifically. Miller makes this same point with respect to historical events in evolution. Science (and explanation in general) relies largely on plausibility arguments, and heuristic devices like Occam's Razor, to eliminate some possibilities in favor of others. So while it is true that the virgin birth cannot be explained away by science in a direct fashion, it can be discounted indirectly, by reasoning on the basis of what is likely based on observations of how things work in general.
Rating:
Summary: Great translation for the layman
Review: The end is obvious, but the means was delivered an incredible fashion. As a non-scientiest, novice theologian and someone in constant search for the definition of personal religion, I found his perspective intelligible, logical and convincing. He raises challenging objections to his view, and systematically dispells each one. While he addressed the morality of it all, I felt it went a tad unexplored ... but that could be another book.
Rating: 
Summary: Finding Darwin's God
Review: If you tend to believe that Darwinian theory is correct but still have questions about its implications for your religious belief, this book is for you. Miller has written a wonderful book. His answer to so-called "intelligent design theory" is the best I have read because Miller understands the temptation these ideas offer to anyone desiring to reconcile evolution and religion. But Miller effectively shows how design theory damages philosophy and religion by invoking design as an alternative to evolution. It does a disservice to God by depicting him as a magician who fumbles over and over trying to perform a trick. So how many different elephants did he have to create in order to finally get a good one? In the last chapter, Miller shows that if God represents truth and knowledge then every step we take to understand the natural universe as it actually exists is a step toward God.
Rating: 
Summary: Dariwn's God?
Review: Ken Miller presents his argument in a very persuasive, charismatic manner that makes the book flow rather easily.
Throughout the book, Miller offers a wide variety of quotes from creationists and evolutionists, which he "carefully" uses to support his own case. There are many times where Miller hand selects certain passages to support his own claim.
There are several flaws in Mr. Miller's argument tend to weaken the overall validity of the author's conclusion. For example, Miller repeats a common error that Darwin himself made throughout his books. Miller has associated the biblical word "Kind" to be equivalent with that of the term species. Thus, Miller thinks that by showing species are not immutable he is debunking the biblical claim that all animals were created to their own kind. For Darwin, in his time, this false analogy is forgivable since some people did associate the term "kind" with species. However over one hundred and fifty years have past since Darwin's time and the claim that "kind" is equal with the biological term species is no longer made. In fact, a majority of creationists, Henry Morris for example whom Miller frequently quotes, has readily admitted that speciation does indeed happened. (See Morris's book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science) Moreover, several creation scientists from Creation Research Society have written articles proclaiming that the biblical term kind is more accurately understood when it is associated with the biological classification term Family. Therefore, Miller who correctly proclaims that speciation does occur in nature, incorrectly extrapolates this idea to falsifying the claims of creationists and intelligent design advocates: "Like it or not, intelligent design must face these data by arguing that each and every one of these species were created by scratch." pg 94 Miller also seems to think that creationists believe in deceitful God, one who in Miller's own words, "works cheap tricks". In fact, he devotes a whole chapter to this subject entitling it "God the Magician". Continuing with flawed argument of speciation falsifying the biblical term kind, Miller compounds his mistake by claiming that creationist must somehow rationalize the intermediate stages of species. He says the only way to do is to proclaim God to be some sort of cheap trickster. However, since creationists already admit speciation does indeed happened they have no reason whatsoever to make such a claim. The whole chapter is null and void. Miller attempts to tackle the claims made by fellow biologist Michael Behe. Miller of course disagrees with Behe's claim of irreducible complexity found in nature. Miller suggests that Behe's argument is simply a regurgitation of an already defeated argument of design made by William Paley. Miller even talks about how Darwin solved this problem and quotes from Darwin his take on the human eye from the Origin of Species. What Miller fails to understand though is that while Behe doesn't believe that Darwin's idea of mutation-natural selection evolution can presently explain some things that are irreducible complex, it might be able to in the future. Thus, Behe's argument is simple: right now, from what we currently know in biology, a mutation-natural selection form of evolution cannot explain those things that are irreducible complex. Both Darwin and Richard Dawkins who claim that mutation-natural selection can explain the works of the very complex, like the human eye fail to offer any experimental or observational proof for this claim, rather they only say that it could of happened. Could of happened and did happened though are two totally different things. Thus, the question now turns to statistical probability, and many books and articles have been written made from mathematicians to statisticians (see the works of William Dembski for example) that show that it is statistical improbable that a mutation-natural selection evolution could produce such irreducible complex things such as the human eye. Finally, Miller proclaims in the end of his book that he is a Christian, who "believes in Darwin's God." 292 He argues that, even though he believes in the God of the Bible, whom in the Bible frequently and often interferes and involves himself with the lives of the Hebrew and Jewish people, God does not interfere with the nature. For Miller his view of God is one who chooses not to interfere with nature because, "nature can do perfectly fine job of achieving His aims all by itself?" pg 244 Thus even though the biblical God of the Jews and Christians constantly interacts within their lives and in history, the God that Miller believes in simple allowed nature to run in course. A course from which man himself was an accident. Miller writes: "Given evolution's ability to adapt, to innovate, to test, and to experiment, sooner or later it would have given the Creator exactly what He was looking for-a creature who, like us, could know Him and love Him, could perceive the heavens and dream of the stars, a creature who would eventually discover the extraordinary process of evolution that filled His earth with so much life." Finding Darwin's God is an interesting book for the those who choose to have faith in evolution as well as the Bible. Ken Miller presents an opinion that a lot people seem to hold on to these days: a joint belief in evolution and the Bible. Overall, the book is a good read and presents and adequate and somewhat even view of the evolution-creation controversy.
Rating:
Summary: Good Theory of Divine Evolution; Lacking a Clear Mechanism
Review: It is a pleasure to read an author who clearly presents the supports for evolution, but from the perspective of one deeply committed to God. He shows that one can understand evolution without rejecting her belief in God. Unfortunately, his theological erudition of how God is entwined with His creation does not meet all hopes. Miller begins with a description of the basics and proofs of evolution, along with a very helpful example of how we can scientifically understand something even though we can not observe it directly, such as solar mechanics. He then addresses the three primary arguments presented as alternatives to evolution. The Institute of Creation Research, those that believe that all things were created at one time only thousands of years ago, ultimately fail for not understanding basic principles of science. But more tragically, they misunderstand basic principles of God. For in their worldview, God would have had to create everything with the appearance of age, give some of his creatures the ability to comprehend the world enough to see that it *looked* old, and then everything else in the universe follows standard logical paradigms. God, for ICR, is a liar. Those like Johnson seek to maintain a continuous creation throughout time. If this were so, however, it is certainly odd, because evidently God has been creating every few years new species "out of thin air", but stopped well short of the historical period, as there is no historical record of an animal or plant appearing in a flash of light. Johnson also misapplies truth. As a lawyer he operates from his understanding- something in the law room is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", and one is "innocent until proven guilty". Science, however, operates with the premise of "True until proven false." It has the inherent preconception that all things will one day be proven false. We understand from the progression of Newtonian to Einsteinian to Quantum mechanics that this doesn't necessarily mean throwing all the old ideas out. Indeed, much like Christ, it is not abolishing the law, but fulfilling it. But the courtroom and science operate under different concepts of truth (and incidentally, both separate from theological truth). Both are valid in their own sphere. Anything we believe today could be disproven tomorrow with a good, repeatable experiment. But Johnson would have done far better had he realized which side of the court he was on. He feels that he needed to simply raise reasonable doubts about evolution, without presenting a fair alternative. But evolution has a weight of evidence. It is the status quo. It, not Johnson, is the defense, which must be proven guilty. Reasonable doubts raised are not enough. Lastly, Miller addresses the arguments of Behe, who would say that all evolved, but not the cell and structures like it, for it is simply too complex. Miller shows many convincing examples of how irreducibly complex systems actually are reducible, and can have evolved concurrently and symbiotically. I appreciate that Miller then shows where the fierce anti-religious stance of biologists (in general) are also to blame for enflaming the arguments. As Gould pointed out in Rock of Ages, they have violated the principle of Non-Overlapping Magesterium, invading the realm of religion and philosophy and claiming that science has a right, and an ability, to address these concerns. It has neither. But the attitude that it does has turned off many of those who might have otherwise accepted, or even welcomed, evolution. Miller then enters more shaky theological ground. Some of his points *are* helpful. I personally found the highlight of the book to be the turn-around argument, always the best kind, in showing how the creationists are deists. Everyone today accepts that God works in certain patterns in nature and life. We call this science. At the same time Christians believe that God is active in this present time, and all times. He is working through the principles we see today. But creationists state that he did not do so in the past, hence the "ex nihilo" need of creationism. Therefore God is working differently now than he did previously; He no longer creates; His actions are now less direct than they once were, in regards to the ability to create. He is then a removed God; a Deist God. But the theological arguments for God's action, or lack thereof, are not convincing. Miller argues we can find free will within the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. For not even God knows both the location and velocity of an electron, or what direction an electron will move next, as these are inherently unknowable. And subatomic actions have an effect on macroscopic reality. But for Miller, this is beautiful, as it allows for the presence of the free-will of man, within the quantum realm. Unfortunately, this theory does not fully provide the needed answers. Firstly, Miller ignores certain aspects of God's character that would allow Him to determine even what happens at the quantum level. God created all things (through whatever means). This includes the rules of chance and statistics, which electrons subscribe to, the very foundations of our universe. God is also outside of time. So while an event may take place, and the electron may move to the left, and we will not know it does so till afterward, God, being outside of time, will know it has done so before hand. He can know all things. And through the laws of chance which he created, He can direct all things. In the end, Miller's analysis works very well for an arminiast, which in their hearts most Christian Americans may be, but it does not work well for those who follow Augustinian predestination. Which of course would include, at least theologically, the whole of the Roman Church. Miller is trying to demonstrate that God has allowed for free will in his creatures, but he has based that on a theological supposition that free will actually exists. That is not the reality for many Christians. And, since he uses the Islamic example as well, this is not the reality for most Muslims, with the exception of the 7th century Kharijites, now considered heretics. But the largest problem with the interposition of free will within quantum mechanics is that it is simply not actually free will. Humanity has no control over the quantum world, even less so than God. It is chance. That quantum fluctuations occur outside of the realm of God's omnipotence does not mean then that humanity has free will. It only means that God has less power, and humans are stuck in the same place, wherever that was. And then, like the Greeks, the Creator God has created another god, greater than He, called chance. For that which is outside the realm of God becomes a God unto itself. History is filled with successive polytheistic dynasties. And it would seem the ultimate conclusion of Miller's arguments is another such schema.
Rating: 
Summary: Still Searching ...
Review: Why are Evolutionists often so slow in catching on to the fact that arrogance, sarcasm and ridicule rarely enhances one's argument? This book takes it even further, with every topic beginning and ending with a condescending psychological analysis of those who reach different conclusions from the author. In fact an entire chapter is devoted to the subject. While this may draw high-fives from Miller's like-minded buddies, others may feel it more of a distraction. Strip away the condescension, along with the bold promises to prove evolution and the hearty self-congratulation at having made the case, and the skeptic (who accepts micro-evolution and an older age for the earth) is left with about 15 to 20 pages of science - this is still much better than Dawkins, by the way. For me, the significance of each cited case, though highly exaggerated, never seemed to measure up against the bold claims made for it. I got the sense that that Miller is trying to prove mountains from molehills and requesting that the reader fill the factual void with imagination. In the interest of limited space and fairness I'll use what I think is Miller's strongest scientific argument as an example. This would be the Reznick guppy study done over a period of years which showed that body size and sexual maturity increased - to a point - when the fish was removed from it's natural habitat to one with a near absence of predators. According to Miller, the study shows a "Darwin" rate of "10,000 to 10,000,000" times what it needs to be to support macro-evolution. Although tracking relatively trivial modification, this is still considered a landmark study (and to be fair, Reznick himself makes these same claims as well). When researching the original article, I found the extrapolation seriously flawed. To begin with, the only traits included in the measure were the only two traits that actually showed any change - and these were interrelated. These traits also leveled off after a time (males more quickly than females) after which the study was concluded. Deciding to ignore the thousands of potential changes that didn't happen, and limiting the scope of calculation only to the time period during which change occurs is an almost criminal case of cooking the numbers. Viewed from a different angle, the guppy study may actually have shown limits to genetic alteration. Not only did the change in age and size proceed only to a certain point, but the traits in question were not that significant, and it wasn't clearly proven that their ranges hadn't been in the population prior to the study. The measure of genetic variation seemed to be a comparison of the entire DNA library, rather than the nucleotide sequences of the regions directly affecting the observed traits. All in all, it just wasn't demonstrated that guppies will be anything other than guppies no matter how much time goes by. Why does Miller feel it necessary to misrepresent the numbers in order to make his case? What is the actual rate of adaptive mutation and does it really support the theory of unguided evolution? Curiously, misrepresentation occurs on other places as well, for example Miller's case against Intelligent Design is based almost exclusively on a very narrow definition which does not allow for speciation - not exactly a mainstream tenet among ID'ers, in fact I don't think I've ever read anyone in the movement who presents that opinion. Ironically Miller identifies Michael Behe as a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, but also cites Behe's reported belief in common descent. Perhaps the most conspicuous thing about the book is the absence of an "origin-of-life" scenario, much less one that is compelled by the evidence. This omission is deeply perplexing and unfortunately leads one to dark speculation about the author's own philosophical preconceptions.
Rating:
Summary: Difficult
Review: I do not consider myself a dummy but I had a hard time understanding this book. All I came away from it feeling was that if you need to believe in certain intricate nuances of evolution to have faith in God, then you may have some more serious issues to begin with. Miller weaves an extremely specific, intricate argument in his proposal that certain aspects of God can perhaps be evidenced in living creatures at a cellular level, usually so much so that I forgot what he was talking about by the time I finished the passage.The crux of his argument was that evolution can be seen as evidence of our free will as the evolutionary process is largely composed of choices that we make. This is an argument that made sense when I was reading but, in retrospect, strikes me as rather feeble. As I said before, however, perhaps that was due to my incomplete comprehension of the book. I will leave it at five stars as I think there is another level here that I feel, as a non-scientist, I might have missed.
Rating:
Summary: a must read for all creationists
Review: wow! this book will make you think. every creationist, should read this. kenneth miller masterfully explains the flaws of many creationist authors and their explanations in a polite manner backed by mountains of evidence. it is referenced very well! if you have read the works of Morris, Behe, Gish, Kristol, or Johnson, you should definatly read this book. it also crosses over into other fields of science such as astronamy and physics to relay points and provide supporting evedence. the author has his own explanation of how god can interact with evoloution and science as a whole, which i must say i din't care for all too much. but i gave it 5 stars because it is soo well referenced. do you consider yourself to have an open mind? are you a creationist? are you catholic? are you an athiest? if you said yes to any of these questions, then you will get your moneys worth from reading this book!it will definatly give you food for thought.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful synthesis of christianity and evolution
Review: This is a superb book. In the first two thirds Miller demolishes the arguments of the three major creationist viewpoints, and he does it very politely and clearly. He doesn't do this by creating a straw man and knocking it down, but by showing that scientifically AND theologically creationism is a hollow creation. In particular, he shows that creationism downgrades God as well as evolution. The last third covers how Miller reconciles his God with evolution. Despite, or perhaps because, his view of God is very mainstream (reading between the lines I think he even believes in transsubstantiation) Miller reconciles God with evolution very easily, by showing that evolution and God is a problem similar to why suffering and why free will, problems religion has to find answers for because they're true, and cannot answer by denying their existence. A previous reviewer stated "Miller's reconciliation of evolution with God's existence seems based on a weak premise; that God designed this whole system so He could create a species evolved enough to recognize and worship Him". That's the basis of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, whether you believe in evolution or not. I don't believe understanding how Miller came to his faith would have enlightened anyone, as that would be a personal matter whereas this book is designed to show that evolution and religion are not incompatible for anyone with faith no matter how that faith came about. Buy this book, you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant,but...
Review: Dr. Miller's book is extremely erudite and his scientific reasoning made great sense to me, a true layman. The science part of his book is clear, strong and convincing. Certainly any creationist open minded enough to open this book would find his beliefs shaken to the core, if not gently and politely destroyed. However, Miller's reconciliation of evolution with God's existence seems based on a weak premise; that God designed this whole system so He could create a species evolved enough to recognize and worship Him. If one accepts his apparent position that God does exist then the rationalization with evolution is rather easy for all but strick creationists to make. I would like to know more about his basis for having faith in God's existance. Without this faith his argument falls apart. No one can prove God exists but perhaps Miller could have shared with us his basis for believing this is so. This entire discussion could have been boiled down to thirty pages, but the reader would then miss all the fascinating science and the presentations of other scholars' thoughts on this same subject. I am glad I read it but I wish he had given me a greater understanding of the basis for his faith.
|
