Rating: 
Summary: Challenging
Review: Kenneth Miller has produced a thoroughly researched and convincing book dealing with an integration of science and faith. I highly recommend this work to anyone interested in the topic.Miller meets every conceivable argument head-on. As I read the book, I would think ahead and say, "But what about *this*?..." and sure enough, a few pages later he would answer it. I was impressed at the fearlessness with which he took on all the young-Earth creationists, as well as staunch evolutionists like Gould. He deals with such tough questions as...Was man specifically "designed" as the final product of evolution, or was man what happened to evolve? How can true free will and an omnipotent God be possible? And of course, many more hard questions are explored. The book is well organized, dealing with each camp in the debate one at a time, and thoroughly. The writing is good, and is written so as anyone can understand it. This book is likely to challenge you wherever you come down on the issue, and it is well worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: An excellent book for anyone wondering about the creation-evolution debate. I especially recommend this book to anyone who has rejected a belief in God because of the pseudoscientific arguments of creationists, is questioning their faith in light of scientific evidence, or doubt the anti-theistic claims of some scientists. Miller's strength is in his science, and handily and clearly presents the evidence for an ancient earth and evolution that is ignored by creationists. However, one will need to go elsewhere for a more detailed discussion of Biblical texts, or of theology. (For a start on that, I recommend Dick Fisher's book, The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate). As a solid science book, I also recommend Foundation, Fall, and Flood , by Glenn Morton.
Rating:
Summary: Science is science, Religion is religion
Review: Kenneth Miller presents a good analysis of the substance for evolution. He also spend several good chapters discussing the problems with creationist ideas on the subject of origins. Science is science is the best way to describe this. Following the scientific discussion, he presents a good analysis of the crux of the philosophical problem that the religious have in accepting evolution. Here the problem becomes philosophical. In the finale, Miller demonstrates how a belief in a personal, active God can be harmonized with evolution. He emphasizes that these are articles of faith and the science can no more substantiate a belief in God than it can substantiate a belief in no God. Religion is religion. I found Miller's presentation to be a good foundational work on evolutionary theory and a good philosophical work concerning that which goes beyond science.
Rating: 
Summary: Very readable exposition of evolutionary biology...
Review: An excellent review of the state of biological evolution told against the backdrop of some of the more prominent creationist challenges. Miller's presentation is is always upbeat and very respectful of his opponents. His refutations are never derogatory or dismissive, but he confronts the challenges head on and shows what the science behind the claims says. His conclusions, where his actual rapproachment is presented, is interesting and worth reading. Miller presents himself as a Christian believer, though I think he would not pass the test of most evangelicals. Some of my more science-minded friends criticize the book as failing on the basis of Miller's attempt to reconcile modern biology to religious belief, but I am more forgiving. This book's strengths (detailed presentation of evidences for evolution) outweigh its weaknesses. I loved this book and plan to read it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating Science, Questionable Theology
Review: Kenneth R. Miller handily dispatches the varieties of evololution-denial, then offers an evolution-friendly Christianity for the 21st century. The defense of evolution was well organized and clearly written. His approach was novel. He focused on the theological absurdities in each of the three main types of modern creationism: The Young Earth Creationists posit a God who is a "charlatan," because He has deliberately created a world that has the appearance of old age, but is, in fact, quite young. The Old Earth Creationists (Phillip Johnson, et al) posit a "magician" God who periodically pulls new species out of His hat every several million years or so. The Intelligent Design-ists (Michaeil Behe, et al) posit a "mechanic" God who created the cell millions (billions?) of years ago, with genes for all future contingencies built right in. Then Miller goes after the atheistic, materialistic scientists. He not only disagrees with their atheistic materialism, but also gives them some of the blame for the popularity of creationism. The dour and hopeless worldview of these scientists (Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Douglas Fukuyama) has scared an undereducated public into the corner of the creationists. Miller to the rescue! Navigating a course between the science-denying creationists and the God-denying materialists, Miller presents us with a (sort of) Christian theology that is not only compatible with, but is supported by modern science. Quantum indeterminency is God's way of preventing excessive predictability, thus inserting enough wiggle room into the universe to allow any evolved intelligence the chance to enjoy free will. The brutality of the natural (and human) world is the price we pay for the opportunity to be truly free willed. Interesting, but the tough "religous" questions remain unanswered, namely: Why are death, fear, pain, and suffering necessary conditions for free will? Like any store owner, God sets His prices. Why so high? How can one say that an omnipotent entity HAD to build suffering into the world in order to insure free will? Such an entity doesn't HAVE to do anything. He makes up the rules. Had He wanted, He could have created a world in which intelligent entities enjoy free will AND never have to see or experience violence and death. Miller offered no evidence to support his theology; he's just reworked Christian theology to make it safe for science. He gave the reader many good reasons to take his science seriously, but no good reasons to take his theology seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Discussion of Evolution and Theology
Review: I found the book very interesting. His discussion of Darwinism and evolutionary theory is very solid. He also talks about problems with the "God of the Gaps" approach to religion. I think his integration of evolution into God's plan for man is interesting, and is similar to traditional attempts to answer how free will is compatible with an omnipotent God. It is so similar, that I do not think evolution itself raises any new theological problems. If one can reconcile free will with an omnipotent God, then evolution should not be a problem, either.
Rating:
Summary: Excels at science, but flunks advanced religion
Review: Miller teaches this same subject at a graduate level, so his book sounds a lot like his lectures in class, polished and professional. When he leaves his class notes and drifts into his religious beliefs, he gets lost and makes mistake after mistake. For example, he says Genesis contains a true and accurate history of man's spiritual relationship with God. Go back and read the account of the Great Flood. Genesis says that God became disappointed in mankind, because we are preoccupied with sex and basically, don't seem all that interested in worshipping God. So God decided to destroy all animal life AND all human life from the surface of the earth. God likes Noah, who is righteous and worships God, so he spares Noah and his family. Okay, how is that a true and accurate history of mankind's relationship with God? The history I learned has shrew-sized mammals hiding in nooks and crevices for a hundred million years while dinosaurs rule the earth, and after God kills off the dinosaurs, mammals get the farm. When did God decide to kill off the human race? And, since this is Miller's field, does analysis of our DNA allow us all to trace our ancestry back to a single Jewish family? Because, if that story is true, shouldn't our DNA (and that of the entire human race) be tracable back to Noah and his family? I think our last common ancestor was in Africa about 2 million years ago, but there is nothing in science to suggest that ONLY that one family was spared by God. If Miller would subject his religious beliefs to the same polished scientific analysis he uses for his day job, the book would have been a lot better.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written, but fluffy
Review: This book should be taken as a nice... piece, but it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said before, and better. I think Miller falls short of his goal of wedding evolution and theism, but I want to say that it is, if you accept theism and have doubts about evolution, at least a realizable goal. Also, this book is good medicine for those who hard-headedly think that evolution must be atheistic. On the contrary, if anything, acceptance of evolution IS inimical to fundamentalism. Luckily, not all theists are foolish enough, or duplicitous enough, to accept ardent superstition in place of genuine religious belief.
Rating:
Summary: God is a Creator, not a Creationist
Review: The first half of the book is an excellent summary of the major "mutually contradictory" anti-evolution arguments and why they fail (as if mutual contradiction isn't enough!). Here, and elsewhere in the literature, however, the refutation of intelligent design sometimes reads like evidence against design. This may mislead some readers to conclude that design is falsifiable, and thus legitimate as a scientific explanation. Despite creative language from Behe, Dembski, et al, design, and creation, remain complements, not alternatives to evolution. In an age when it has become fashionable to promote alternatives, Miller reminds us that there is but "one science." He makes it clear that the promoters of anti-evolution positions are ideologically driven, although he downplays the fact that America's poor science literacy gives them a market. Miller makes a strong case that science, including evolution, is more compatible with mainstream religions then with atheism. He then speculates on an interesting connection between God, free will in general, and the material world. Some readers may be led by the title to expect more compelling theological arguments, but as a scientist, Miller is careful not to dwell on what is not known. The recurring message is that anti-evolutionists needlessly put God into finite gaps that keep getting closed (e.g. cellular complexity), and overlook the infinite gaps which science may never be able to access. That is where personal faith can complement the science without replacing any of it. Minor dislikes aside, I thought the book to be excellent, and a refreshing "alternative" to the trendy "alternative science" books.
Rating:
Summary: Disproves "creation - science" but reconciles with religion
Review: I found the book to be quite interesting. Not only did Miller eloquently describe and show examples of Darwin's theory of evolution, but in doing so he also disproved the claims made by those who try to scientifically show that creation as outlined in Genesis took place. The real beauty of the book is that Miller shows how evolution isn't necessarily hostile to the monotheistic religions of the world. The only facet of the book that I did not like was Miller's notion that God influences life on the quantum level. He claims throughout his book that we should not look for religion in the "dark spaces" of our understanding yet he does so himself by placing his belief in God in the randomness of quantum physics - a field that is constantly undergoing changes as new discoveries of ever smaller particles and forces come into play, so that one day we might be able to, and probably will be able to show that the behaviour of electrons is not trully random. Other then this point, I found Miller's effort quite inspirational. I hope that his book opens the door to more works that try to reconcile religion with science, as opposed to flatly rejecting science as inimical to religion.
| 
