Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

Rating:
Summary: Missing the God of the Bible
Review: Kenneth Miller is the atheists' most favorite Catholic.

In this book he pretty much reminds me of those teenagers who turn out to make terrible mistakes in life just because they want to be accepted by their peers.

The truth is that Darwin's "god" - the author of death and death with abundance - is not the Bible's God - the Author of life and life with abundance. Kenneth Miller's book shows that he may have found Darwin's "god", but he really missed the God of the Bible.

Kenneth Miller decides to put his faith in Darwin and his disciples, instead of puting it in Jesus and His disciples. He judges the Bible based on the naturalistic speculations of athetist scientists, instead of using the Bible as the only and final parameter. In terms that Americans understand, we could say that Miller's position is as silly as the Supreme Court engaging in the judicial review of the federal constitution to assess its validity on the basis of state law.

In a time like ours, where all recent evidence points towards information and irreducible complexity in biology, catastrophism in geology and post-compernicianism in astrophyisics, the best Kenneth Miller can do is to recycle some old XIX century totally unsubstantiated claims about random mutations and natural selection, add to it some clear scientific blunders (v.g. bad design arguments; information loosing mutations) and engage in foolish "darwinian theology".

He submits God's Word, which he finds hard to believe, to the criticism levelled against it by atheist naturalists, who, in spite of being proved wrong time after time (v.g.Pildown Man; Nebaska Man; Orce Man; Archaeoraptor; Archaeopterix; Galapagos Finches; Peppered Moths; Haeckel's embryos; vestigial organs; junk-DNA) Kenneth Miller still has no problem believing in a literal fashion. Something is terribly wrong with Kenneth Miller's "theology" and "science".

In the end, if Kenneth Miller really wants Darwin's "god", he will get it.

Rating:
Summary: Miller's approach seems to be, "Say Anything"
Review: Ken Miller has really become well known for his "refutations" of the intelligent design movement and Michael Behe in particular. FDG is frequently mentioned as a good book for 'how to think' about this issue and indeed lots of people really seem to like Miller's approach. But in reading this book I must say that I was quite dissappointed. Not only does Miller seriously misrepresent Behe's position but Miller's own position seems full of contradictions.

I'll deal with the second claim first.

o Miller rejects the idea that evolution is purposeful throughout his book, but then argues that the outcome of evolution is inevitable (238).

o Throughout his book, Miller rejects (and even ridicules) the idea that there is design in nature, but then suggests that perhaps the laws of nature are designed (191).

o Miller asserts that Phillip Johnson's position of design "cannot be tested, cannot be disproven, cannot even be investigated" just *5 lines* after he says when Phil's case "is tested against this reality, it fails, and it fails every time." (126) It can't be both Ken.

o Throughout his book Miller rejects (and ridicules) the idea that God works through the unknown aspects of nature (God of the Gaps) but then goes on to argue in Chapter 7 that God acts in the mysterious unknowable breaks (literally gaps) in quantum action. He thinks this is a safe bet because quantum indeterminacy can never be solved--but that's precisely the position he has mocked so many times- those who put God in the 'safe' areas that will never be figured out!

o Ultimately Miller is harshest on the creationists because they have let their theology drive their science, but time and time again Miller states his assumptions about what God would and wouldn't do. He then uses these assumptions to close off some realms of scientific inquiry because he thinks his God wouldn't do things a certain way (101). In the beginning of the book he states that he believes in God "because evolution is right." (17) Ultimately, just like the creationists, this book is about a particular theology and the select science that supports it.


Now here are a couple of the ways in which Miller misrepresents Behe:

o Paley Repackaged
MILLER: "Behe openly admires the great nineteenth century advocate of design, Rev. William Paley, and quotes extensively from Paley's Natural Theology to make his case" (135)
RESPONSE: Behe cites Paley only in a section on the history of design arguments (Darwin's Black Box 211-218) and though he does say some positive things about Paley (as does Dawkins), he also critiques Paley "for not framing his argument more tightly," (213) and for putting forth "silly" and "misguided" examples. Natural Theology is only referenced times in these nine pages. In contrast Dawkins is cited/referenced on 21 pages and Darwin is discussed on some 50 different pages.

o The Eye
MILLER: The eye "is a classic example of an irreducibly complex organ." (135)
RESPONSE: Behe does not claim the eye to be an IC organ. In fact he states, "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level" (DBB 22). Behe does detail the biochemical process of vision (18) but makes no argument whether it is in fact irreducibly complex only stating generally that "biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin."

o Paley Again
MILLER: Behe "literally has dusted off the argument from design, spiffed it up with terminology of modern biochemistry, and then applied to the proteins and macromolecular machines that run the living cell." (136)
RESPONSE: Behe does concede (as should we) that "Paley's famous first paragraph concerning the watch is exactly correct..." (215) [after all the watch is designed right?]. However, Behe does acknowledge "problems start when Paley digresses from systems of necessarily interacting components to talk about arrangements that simply fit his idea of the way things ought to be." Behe's argument for ID is not an argument from analogy (like Paley's) but rather one based on positive knowledge about the functional integration of specific systems.


o The Ear
MILLER: The ear and its "five component system perfectly fits the criterion of irreducible complexity."
RESPONSE: Behe does not argue for design based on the anatomy of the hearing system. Behe doesn't even mention hearing in DBB. Whether the anatomical structure is IC is not clear, but the anatomy is beside the point for Behe's argument from a molecular standpoint. Straw man again.

On How to Build a Cilium
MILLER: "A phone call to any biologist who had ever actually studied cilia and flagella would have told Behe that he's wrong in his contention that the 9+2 structure is the only way to make a working cilium or flagellum." (141)
RESPONSE: Behe never claims there is only one way to make a cilium.


Krebs Cycle.
MILLER: "The Krebs cycle is a complex biochemical pathway that requires the interlocking, coordinated presence of at least nine enzymes and three cofactors. And a Darwinian explanation for its origin has now been crafted." (151-152)
BEHE'S RESPONSE: "Either Miller hasn't read what I said in my book about metabolic pathways, or he is deliberately ignoring it. I clearly stated in Darwin's Black Box metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex (Behe 1996) (pp. 141-142; 150-151), because components can be gradually added to a previous pathway. Thus metabolic pathways simply aren't in the same category as the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Although Miller somehow misses the distinction, other scientists do not. In a recent paper Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution "cannot generate irreducibly complex structures." But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, "such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996 a, b)." (Thornhill and Ussery 2000) In other words Thornhill and Ussery acknowledge the TCA cycle is not irreducibly complex, as I wrote in my book. Miller seems unable or unwilling to grasp that point."
---Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics, Michael J. Behe


In conclusion, I'd have to say that Miller's position seems pretty confused and that he seems willing to say almost anything to attack ID and defend his own theology.

Rating:
Summary: A refreshing look between God an Evolution
Review: A great book, a good read, and well written. Mr. Miller spends so much time showing that the two concepts of a "Creator" and Evolution can exists together, given they deal with seperate realms, and his book does this very well. The only issue I had with the book was after all the chapters leading up to the seperation of God and Evolution, in the last chapter he attempts to combine the two. If he had cut the last chapter, I would have given 5 stars!

Rating:
Summary: Evolution must not be so bad...
Review: Evolution is a tricky subject. There are few topics like it-everyone has an iron opinion on an issue about which they know so very little. With thousands of papers and books written on the subject in the past 150 years, there is no shortage of information, just a shortage of courage. God-loving folks are genuinely scared of this "dangerous theory," and for this reason avoid the literature. On the other hand, most of the literature "proving evolution" also defames religion and undermines faith. Thus we have yet another manifestation of the epic science versus religion battle.

Finding Darwin's God is an attempt to bridge the gap-to make a treaty with each side, finding common ground. Miller, both an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and devout Christian, spends the first half of this book scientifically explaining Darwin's theory of natural selection and the origin of species. He then goes through the leading modern rebuttals to Darwin's theory, and counters them. Miller owns an ability to write to a nonscientific crowd maintaining his scientific legitimacy, which will make this complicated and nebulous topic straightforward and concrete. In essence, he proves evolution through citing the legitimate research conducted in the past fifty years, and explains the unscientific aspects of the counter-theories to Darwin's own. In the second half of his book, he addresses the larger, more difficult and more interesting topic of science versus religion. The bottom line is that the seeming conflict is not founded, and there is no real conflict between the two. In other words, whether or not you believe in the theory of evolution should have no founded implications on your faith in religion. This position is right in the middle of the war-zone, and gets attacked from both sides. The believers feel a need to disprove evolution in order to prove that God exists, and the evolutionists try to prove God's inexistence through evolution, both logics are faulty.

Miller's book is a sigh of relief amid a mountain of slanted literature. He is technical and careful in his scientific analysis, but writes to the non-biologist-any interested reader can appreciate his writing. And his agenda (because all authors on the subject), happens to be my own, which is obviously why I like his work so much.


Rating:
Summary: A continued examination-- but there's more to consider
Review: In his book Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth Miller goes a long ways to emphasize the debate of both sides. He takes a very commendable approach- examining both sides of the continuous debate between creation and evolution.

What Miller reveals is that both sides of the debate have serious issues that need consideration. People opposing creation are often the ones to blame, but Miller shows how the actions made in the theories of many other evolutionary scientists has also gone too far. Scientists can tend to stretch beyond the border and make it so they are the real "enlightened" ones with the real glimpse into reality.

As Miller demonstrates, reality is much more weird and awesome than we previously thought. He uses the Chaos theory to show how even the smallest of subatomic particles "are beyond our prediction." Although these issues are very debatable, and don't give us direct evidence for or against a spiritual reality, they do tell us about another factor that needs definite consideration. The greatest thing wrong with the whole evolution/creation debate is that evolution and modern science supposedly take away from the magnificence and grand beauty of all being and the entire physical universe that we are still just beginning to understand.

Even Dawkins, the controversial biologist and writer of THE GENE MACHINE, has granted that it is "okay" that many physicists feel awe and wonderment towards the discoveries they make, and some even describe it as almost like looking into the face of God. This seemingly simple change in definition in the word "god" can tell us something about the way the universe really is--awesome and vast, that in which we just beginning to explore. Even E.O. Wilson has said that the abstract/subjective disciplines will help us to get a greater grasp on reality.

It was Einstein's great mystical outlook on the order and harmony of the Universe that helped lead humans to the greater understanding that we have today. And, thanks to Kenneth Miller, we can see how it was Darwin's great awe and reverence towards the vast diversity of life and all of the different life-forms that led to our modern understanding of biology and evolution. Who knows what lies in store for us as we keep that great outlook. It is with that great outlook that we are able to optimally gaze at reality, and even then we only begin to see the elegance and beauty of the universe.



Rating:
Summary: This is a great informative book
Review: I am a science oriented person. I love reading books like this so when I say this book was riveting understand that a student of evolutionary science is stating that. That said I loved this book. His arguments against Michael Behe were well written and well researched. I recommend this book to any religious person who doesn't belive in the "myth" of evolution.

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.