Rating: 
Summary: Excellent refutation of 'scientific' creationism
Review: Anti-evolutionists have become increasingly sophisticated in their attacks on biology. Phillip Johnson argues that evolution presupposes metaphysical naturalism. Michael Behe argues that evolution cannot explain 'irreducibly complex' structures. Distinguished biologist Kenneth Miller (Brown University) refutes these and other misguided attacks on biological evolution in a delightfully written, fast-paced defense of evolution. Miller, a practicing Roman Catholic, also has a fascinating section on evolution's implications for religious belief. Anyone interested in evolution and 'scientific' creation will want to add this book to their library.
Rating:
Summary: A superb defense of evolution and religion
Review: Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" is an eloquent defense of evolution that refutes every argument ever advanced by so-called "creation scientists". He offers a sympathetic portrayal of creationism while providing clear, compelling evidence why it isn't science. His reasonable arguments in defense of evolution and religion are ones which every creationist should heed. Indeed, he clearly demonstrates the philosophical kinship which evolution shares with monotheistic faiths such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, some may regard his version of GOD as one more consistent with Deism than with Christianity. Kenneth Miller is celebrated at Brown University for his excellence in teaching. Such excellence is mirrored in his crisp, eloquent prose. And it is literary excellence which deserves to be awarded with a Pulitzer Prize. Although I never had the pleasure of enrolling in his courses, I feel privileged to have helped him embark upon his successful career debating creationists throughout North America. Back in 1981 I was the sole evolutionist on an ad hoc campus committee which invited Kenneth Miller to debate creationist Henry Morris from the "Institute for Creation Research" in San Diego, California. Needless to say, Kenneth Miller won his first debate.
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: Sound evolutionary science, but...
Review: As a person with an interest in evolutionary sciences, I was looking forward to see how Kenneth Miller tackled the question of rectifying the existence of God with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Overall, he does an excellent job in summarizing the basic views of evolutionary theory and refutes in concise and convincing fashion, the viewpoints of young-earth creationists and intelligent design theory. Unlike most other books that deal with this topic, I could find no faults with his explanation of Darwinism, nor with the ample evidence from paleontology and biochemistry that he uses to support his views. He also addresses Michael Behe's arguments in "Darwin's Black Box" with a great deal of clarity. For his accurate analysis of evolutionary theory at work, his book deserves a special mention. Kenneth Miller's philosophical arguments about why evolution is consistent with the existence of God is not quite as well argued, however. His opinion, in a nutshell, is that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. The mechanism of evolution made it probable that at least one species would become advanced enough to be able to recognize and have a relationship with a creator, and that evolution was essential in the development of "free will" that would make individuals have a choice in choosing or rejecting the creator. Of course there is no scientific evidence to support this, but Mr. Miller does raise some interesting points with this argument. However, it seems to me that this would be an unsatisfactory argument to someone who wishes to have an "active" God in their individual lives who can intervene on their behalf. In addition, Mr. Miller provides no viewpoints on why a Judeo-Christian God (as he believes in) would be the prime deity. Why not Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or any of the other major Eastern religions? Overall, I think that Mr. Miller's book is definitely worth reading for his excellent summary of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. His religious arguments are not as well argued, but they certainly will make you think, regardless of your religious (or non-religious) beliefs.
Rating: 
Summary: A Simplistic Philosophy of Science
Review: This is not a bad book in the sense of being morally wicked or irrational. It is, however, a very bad little book. It is bad for turning sincerity of belief into an excuse for ignorance. It only proves what any first year philosophy students knows: any two ideas can be made compatible with sufficient effort. The real question is: Why would anyone not already convinced take up the challenge to do so? A scientist has written a book with very little science and a great deal of philosophy. Without judging his science, it is safe to say that his philosophy is of the "soothing syrup" sort. Miller is a naturalist who happens to believe in God. Bully for him. Other than that is God shown by evolution looks like an idea Miller already had looking for justification in another idea Miller already had. More robust naturalists are apt to praise this book, since it gives them religious cover in a religious nation. The book adopts the "Kerensky" strategy. "Lenin to my left, the Tsar on my right. . . you better side with me." Just what do you believe, Mr. Kerensky? The answer is always a bromide or two on both sides of an issue. Just like Kerensky, Miller's supine positions are doomed to marginal existence.
Rating:
Summary: This a wonderful book
Review: This book is one of the best I have read in a long time. I would highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in science and religion. Many people think that the theory of evolution says that there is no God. The author goes a long way toward showing that this is not necessarily so and reconciling these issues in a way that is respectful to both science and religion. Consider giving this book both to your atheistic academic friends and to your anti-evolution friends (I hope you have both kinds!).
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: Terrific book
Review: This is a tremendous book that will help any seeker reconcile both evolution and the existence of evil with a caring and loving God. This may help you believe in a Theist God but for me it falls short of the Christian God because it doesn't show the role and purpose of Jesus. Nevertheless, a great book for any theist or those considering theism.
Rating: 
Summary: Can non-determinism be non-random?
Review: I just finished reading Dr. Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God." The first part of the book is a rebuttal of creationist comments on evolution. The second part of the book is a defense of theism - specifically Western monotheism. Dr. Miller tries to pull off this feat by embracing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as the means by which God gives us a "free will" that makes Christian theology relevant. But, by doing so, Dr. Miller commits the very fallacy he accuses creationists of - i.e. using gaps in human knowledge as a means to introduce God as being necessary.
The first flaw of Dr. Miller's reasoning is that he treats Heisenberg's principle unlike any other scientific theory. He assumes it is an insurmountable reality forever - one that future sciences will never revise or overcome. But, as Dr. Miller points out in the first part of his book, relying on such a lack of imagination often ends badly for those religions that depend on such "nevers" to justify their faith. The reality is that Heisenberg's observation is not necessarily insurmountable. Therefore, to use the non-determinism of Heisenberg is to rest the case of monotheism on something that might go away in the future.
In any case, a permanent state of non-determinism (i.e. Heisenberg's observation is indeed forever true every where) does not help the case for theism. Dr. Miller posits the idea that the non-determinism we perceive is composed of:
1. Real randomness - i.e. quantum events that involve no guiding/intervening super-natural force; and/or
2. Apparent randomness -- i.e. quantum events that are guided by an intervening super-natural force (a force that is beyond our ability to detect).
Let's start with (2). It does not favor "free will" since a supernatural force that intervened in quantum events would be nudging outcomes in a particular direction without the conscious control or consent of human beings. This is the opposite of "free will." Whereas (1) is precisely the kind of non-determinism that outspoken scientists speak of - i.e. "real random" quantum events without a role for a super-natural force.
So, where is there a role for an active God except in (2), which we've already established abolishes the very "free will" that is necessary for Dr. Miller's case? And, even if we are generous and concede that (2) could be rationalized in some way to support "free will," it begs more questions.
For example, in a world where 90% of quantum events are "real randomness" and 10% are "apparent randomness," how much free will exists? 10% or 100%? If you say 100%, ask yourself how much free will would exist in a world where 100% of quantum events are "real randomness" and 0% are "apparent randomness." When you do the math, you realize that Dr. Miller is "multiplying complexity without necessity" (i.e. violating Occam's Razor). Dr. Miller's introduction of super-naturalism into non-determinism is superfluous at best. By being non-parsimonious, Dr. Miller introduces an entity/mechanism that amounts to theoretical baggage - not unlike the baggage creationists introduce when they try to insert God somewhere in the history of human evolution.
Rating:
Summary: 'Finding Darwin's God' finds Darwin - but God's still lost.
Review: Kenneth Miller has done an excellent job of debunking, deflating and generally thrashing the various species of creationism prevalent in America. His attempted synthesis of evolution and Christianity, however, will leave much to be desired.
The major portion of the book deals with creationism as Miller, chapter by chapter, examines the claims of the creationists both as science and as theology. His step-by-step, patient exposition of science rarely descends into sarcastic rejoinders to the babbling creationists, preferring instead to let the evidence speak for itself - and speak it does! His destruction of biochemist Michael Behe's confused 'black box' has rightly become famous. Except for his rebuttal to Behe, I don't think that Miller really says anything new about the evidence for evolution - but he says it well, with a pleasant flowing style that is very easy to read.
His understanding of Christian theology is also displayed as, in each chapter examining creationism, he takes the creationist's beliefs and critically examines them in light of what it does to their conception of God. I found these segments to be absolutely wonderful as Miller clearly shows that not only have the creationists done great violence to science - they have done, and are still doing, great violence to theology!
The later portion of the book, however, lags somewhat as Miller attempts to argue in Christianity's favour using the facts of evolution. The argument amounts to a modified Deism that does nothing to argue for Christianity over any other sytem of theology. Miller, in fact, comes close to making the same mistake that the creationists do - assuming that, in the absence of opposition, Christianity is the natural fall back position.
I would say that Miller suceeds in demonstrating that acceptance of evolution and belief in Christianity can be held together. However, he does not make a convincing case for why anyone should bother trying to.
The science, however, is brilliantly summarised and this book will provide a great one-stop reference for anyone beset by creationist idiocy.
|
