What do you think?
Rate this book
Finding Darwin`s God A Scientist`s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution
Brand New. Will be shipped from US.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1999
79 people are currently reading
2490 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth R. Miller
99 books102 followersKenneth R. Miller is Professor of Biology at Brown University. He earned his Ph.D. in 1974 at the University of Colorado, and spent six years teaching at Harvard University before returning to Brown. He is a cell biologist, and chairs the Education Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology. He serves as an advisor on life sciences to the NewsHour, a daily PBS television program on news and public affairs.
His research work on cell membrane structure and function has produced more than 50 scientific papers and reviews in leading journals, including CELL and Nature, as well as leading popular sources such as Natural History and Scientific American. Miller is coauthor, with Joseph S. Levine, of four different high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students nationwide. He has received five major teaching awards, and in 2005 was given the Presidential Citation of the American Institute for Biological Sciences for distinguished service in the field of Biology. In 2006 he received the Public Service Award from the American Society for Cell Biology, and in 2007 was given the Science Educator Award from the Exploratorium Museum in San Francisco.
One of Miller's principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as "intelligent design," and he has debated a number of anti-evolutionists over the years.
His research work on cell membrane structure and function has produced more than 50 scientific papers and reviews in leading journals, including CELL and Nature, as well as leading popular sources such as Natural History and Scientific American. Miller is coauthor, with Joseph S. Levine, of four different high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students nationwide. He has received five major teaching awards, and in 2005 was given the Presidential Citation of the American Institute for Biological Sciences for distinguished service in the field of Biology. In 2006 he received the Public Service Award from the American Society for Cell Biology, and in 2007 was given the Science Educator Award from the Exploratorium Museum in San Francisco.
One of Miller's principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as "intelligent design," and he has debated a number of anti-evolutionists over the years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews
February 3, 2008
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.
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.
February 15, 2017
العثور على إله دارون لكينيث ميلر
ينتصر للنظرية العلمية ويوفّق بينها وبين الدين
محمد الجمري – 14 فبراير 2017
عدد الكلمات: 1600
لطالما كانت نظرية التطوّر موضوعًا ساخنًا للجدل بين مؤيدٍ يرى أنها تكشف خطأ الأديان وتشكّك في وجود الخالق، ومعارضٍ يرى فيها خديعة كبرى اختقلها الماديّون للقضاء على التديّن ونشر أفكارهم الإلحادية. في هذا الكتاب الذي حمل عنوان «العثور على إله دارون: بحث عالمٍ عن أرضيّةٍ مشتركة بين الله والتطور» يطرح علينا البيولوجي كينيث ميلر وجهة نظر لا يقبلها أي من الفريقين السابقين، فهو يؤكد صحة النظرية ويرد على الاعتراضات المثارة ضدها من قبل «الخلقويين»، وهم من يرفضون نظرية التطور ويؤمنون –بأشكال وصور مختلفة- بوجود خلق مباشر للكائنات الحية من العدم. وفي نفس الوقت فإن الكاتب يرفض ما يسميه «آلهة الإلحاد» الذي دمجوا رؤاهم الفلسفية المادية بالمخرجات العلمية، وبالتالي أوصلوا رسالة مفادها أن قبول العلم، وبالتحديد نظرية التطور يستلزم عدم الإيمان بوجود خالق أو غاية في الكون. وفي النهاية يطرح الكاتب رؤيته للتوفيق بين الدين والتطوّر.
يبدأ الكاتب بالتأكيد على أهمية ومحورية نظرية التطور بالنسبة لعلوم الحياة (البيولوجيا)، حيث أنها هي النقطة الرئيسية والمبدأ المنظّم والمركز المنطقي لكل تخصصات البيولويجيا اليوم. بل أن تأثيرها قد فاق مجرّد كونها نظرية علمية، فتأثرت بها تخصصات الإنسانيات، والفلسفة والسياسة والثقافة بشكل عام. يروي الكاتب قصة تعرّفه على الأفكار التطوّرية أيام شبابه، وكيف أنه اتجه للقراءة لمآرب أخرى، ولكن هذا العالَم الجديد نجح في جذبه بقوة. يعبّر الكاتب عن استيائه من اعتماد الكثير من اللادينيين على نظرية التطور لنقد الأديان ويرى أن هذا من أكبر العوامل التي تؤدي إلى نفور قطاع كبير من العامة من نظرية التطور، فكثير من الناس باتوا يساوون بينها وبين الإلحاد، وحسب وجهة نظره فهذا لا يمكن أن يصب في صالح العلم. كثير من الطلاب والأساتذة استغربوا ويستغربون من إيمان ميلر بوجود إله رغم كونه مقرًا كذلك بالتطور، فهناك افتراض عام في عالم الأكاديميا أن الشخص ما إن يتعلم ويتثقف فإنه سرعانما يترك التدين.
ينتقل الكاتب بعد هذا لشرح نظرية التطور وإثبات صحتها، فيبدأ بسرد تاريخ الاكتشافات الأحفورية والجيولوجية التي أدت بالتدريج إلى ظهور نظرية التطور، ومن ثم يستعرض أبرز الأدلة التي تؤكد حدوث التطور. يشبّه الكاتب العلماء بالمحققين الذين يبحثون عن الأدلة التي تشير لوقوع الجريمة، ويستنكر على من يقول بعدم قدرتنا معرفة الماضي بسبب عدم وجودنا فيه، ويؤكد بأمثلة من علم الفلك كيف أن العلماء استطاعوا معرفة الكثير عن النجوم كدرجة حرارة سطحها، ومكوناتها الذرية، وكتلتها، وموقعها بالنسبة لنا وسرعة حركتها، كل ذلك دون أن تطأ قدمهم أو قدم أي مسبار سطح هذه النجوم، التي انتهى بعضها من الوجود منذ ملايين أو مليارات السنين. يؤكد الكاتب كذلك الطبيعة المادية للعلم، وجدوى هذه الطريقة ونجاحها في تفسير الواقع، رغم كونها طريقة غير مطلقة اليقين، أي أنها قابلة للتغيير مع ظهور أدلة جديدة.
يأخذنا بعد ذلك إلى علاقة التطور بالدين، فيقول بصراحة أن الدين (متمثلًا في اليهودية، المسيحية والإسلام) -أو على الأقل الطرح التقليدي له- يتعارض مع التطور، فكلاهما يطرحان قصة مختلفة عن ظهور الحياة والإنسان. يرى الكاتب أن فهمنا للكتب المقدسة يجب أن يتطوّر مع تقدم الجنس البشري، فكما أننا نعلم اليوم أن الأرض ليست مركز الكون والخليقة، فكذلك يجب أن يتطوّر فهمنا لله من مجرد إله صغير يجلس على عرش أحد القصور إلى إله كبير يملك الكون كله وأن قصة الخلق الواردة في سفر التكوين ليست سوى أسطورة. لا يطرح الكاتب جميع التفاصيل هنا بل يضعها كمقدمة للفصول الأخيرة التي يشرح فيها كيفية توفيقه بين الدين والتطوّر.
في الفصول الوسطى في الكتاب، يتم التطرق لأبرز حجج الخلقيين والرد عليها، فيقسمهم إلى ثلاثة أصناف، «الإله المخادع»، «الإله الساحر»، و«الإله الميكانيكي». أما النوع الأول فهم الذين يؤمنون بشكل حرفي مطلق بالكتاب المقدس، ومن خلال حساب أعمار البشر المذكورة فيه من آدم إلى يومنا هذا خلصوا إلى أن عمر الكون هو حوالي ستة آلاف سنة فقط، وأن كل المشاهدات التي تؤكد عكس ذلك هي أمور ظاهرية فقط. فبطرحهم هذا فإنه يصورون الله بالمخادع الذي لكي تنجح خطته في تضليلنا قام بوضع جميع الأدلة في الأماكن الدقيقة التي نجدها فيها، وهم كذلك لا يرفضون هنا نظرية التطور فحسب، بل علوم الفلك والفيزياء والكيمياء. إن هذا الطرح عند تحليله بصورة جيدة يدمر كل من الدين والعلم، ومكانه سلة المهملات لا غير. أما أصحاب أطروحة «الإله الساحر» فيقولون أن النظريات الطبيعية المادية غير كافية لتفسير حدوث التطوّر ولا بد من التدخل الإلهي بشكل مستمر وإعجازي لحدوثها. وأخيرًا فإن أتباع «الإله الميكانيكي» يبحثون عن الثغرات في العلم، أي الأمور التي لا تزال قيد البحث، ويقولون بأن الله هو التفسير الوحيد لها وهي حجة تعرف بإسم آخر هو «إله الفراغات».
يرد الكاتب على هذه الحجج بصورة بارعة ورائعة تكشف ضعفها وهشاشتها، ولكن الكاتب لا يقف هنا، فهو يملك تاريخًا طويلًا في مناظرة الخلقويين، وخلال هذه المسيرة كان يبحث عن الدوافع الكامنة وراء رفضهم للتطوّر، وقد توّصل إلى أن للأمر سببين أساسيين، الأول هو الدين والثاني هو عداء بعض العلماء للدين. فالفهم الحرفي للنصوص الدينية هو ما يؤدي إلى تصوّر أنها تتحدث عن حقائق علمية وليس عظات أخلاقية ومُثُل لهداية الناس. يعبّر الكاتب عن إحباطه من تعويل الكثير من المتدينين على عدم قدرة العلم على تفسير بعض الظواهر الطبيعية، وكأن هذا الأمر انتصار للدين، فبعد أن تمكن التقدم العلمي في الفلك والفيزياء من طرق أبواب السماء والتنبؤ بحركة الأجرام فيها، عوّل الكثيرون على أن الكائنات الحية ستبقى عصيّة على التفسير العلمي وبنوا إيمانهم على ذلك، ولكن تقدم العلم أظهر أن هذه الكائنات كذلك يمكن فهمها بصورة مادية. يعود الكاتب بعد هذا لانتقاد الاطروحات الإلحادية لبعض العلماء والتي يرى أنها تجعل من فكرة التطور فكرة خطيرة حقًا ومهددة للدين، مما يدفع كثير من المتدينين لرفضها، ويخص في انتقاداته كلًا من ريتشارد دوكنز، دانييل دانيت وإدوارد ويلسون مع آخرين.
وفي الفصلين الأخير يطرح الكاتب رؤيته التوفيقية بين الدين والتطوّر، حيث أن يرى خطأ مقولة أن التطوّر يؤدي في النهاية إلى الإلحاد والمادية، ويرى إمكانية قبول التطور مع الاحتفاظ بالإيمان بالله والثوابت الدينية. يعود الكاتب إلى تاريخ الأفكار المادية في القرون الثلاثة الماضية، وكيف أدى النجاح العلمي إلى بروز فكرة الحتمية التي يرى أنها تؤدي للإلحاد. ولكن الكاتب يستدرك، فيشير إلى ثورة ميكانيكا الكم في الفيزياء التي خرجت لنا بمبدأ غريب هو «مبدأ اللايقين»، والذي يشير إلى عدم إمكانية التنبؤ بموقع وسرعة الجزيئات الصغيرة كالإلكترون بصورة دقيقة. إن عدم الدقة هذا ليس بسبب ضعف أجهزة الرصد، بل هو أمر مبدئي، أي أنه لا يزول حتى مع ظهور أجهزة أكثر دقة. يخلص الكاتب إلى أن هذا يعني وجود ثقرة في قانون السببية ويؤدي إلى سقوط الحتمية، وبالتالي وجود مساحة لحرية الإنسان في الاختيار ولله للتدخل بشكل مستمر في الكون، حيث أن اللايقين هذا يمتد للبيولوجيا عن طريق الطفرات الجينية. يحرص الكاتب على التفريق بين العشوائية وبين اللايقينية، فالأولى تعني تساوي كفة جميع الاحتمالات، بينما في الثانية هناك أحداث أكثر أو أقل احتملًا من الأخرى.
يطرح الكاتب فكرة تشبه إحدى المنشورات التي سبق لي طرحها على أحد مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وهي أن الخلقويين يقبلون التفسيرات العلمية المادية عن الأمور التي تحدث في الحاضر، فلا مشكلة لديهم مثلًا في التفسيرات العلمية لسقوط المطر، حدوث البراكين أو خسوف الشمس، ولكنهم يرفضون التفسيرات عندما يتعلق الأمر بالماضي فقط. يضيف الكاتب أن هذا يعني بصورة أخرى أن هؤلاء الخلقويين لا يرون قدرة الله إلا في الماضي، فهم بهذا الطرح يتصورون الله بعيدًا عن الكون، صنعه وتركه، وهذا ما يعرف بالإله الربوبي (مذهب الربوبية). ولكنهم ينكرون ذلك ويقولون بتدخل الله المستمر في الكون، وهنا يظهر التناقض، فإذا كان تدخل الله مستمرًا فلماذا هذا الفصل بين طريقة هذا التدخل في الماضي والحاضر؟ يؤكد الكاتب أن قدرة الله تسري في الماضي والحاضر والمستقبل ولا بد أن نفهمها بنفس الطريقة وهي الطريقة العلمية. ينتقد الكاتب كذلك القراءات الحرفية للنصوص الدينية والتي يرى أنها تؤدي لتناقضات كثيرة ولا يصح الأخذ بها، ويستشهد هنا برأي القديس أوغسطين الذي حذَر في كتاباته في القرن الرابع الميلادي من الأخذ بحرفية النصوص لأن ذلك يضر بالدين ولا ينفعه.
يختم الكاتب بتقديم عدد من الحجج على وجود الله من قبيل دقة الثوابت الكونية، ويرد على مشكلة الشر بحجة الإرادة الحرة، ويقول بعدم منافاة العشوائية الموجودة في نظرية التطور مع وجود الله، حيث أن العشوائية موجودة في كثير من الأمور الأخرى كذلك كالأحداث التاريخية الكبيرة والتي لا يرى أحد أنها تعارض مشيئة الله، بل أنها من ضمن خطته للكون. يخلص الكاتب إلى أن الله وضع قوانين الكون التي نراها، وصممها بحيث تسمح له بالتدخل وقت يشاء، حيث وضع ثقرة في قانون السببية نجدها في ميكانيكا الكم.
التقييم
بشكل عام أسلوب الكاتب سلس وواضح، وهو يقدم المواضيع بشكل تدريجي ويطرح تشبيهات ومقارنات ممتازة تسهّل عملية الفهم. أدهشتني وأعجبتني صراحة الكاتب في طرح مواضيع وأسئلة يعتبرها الكثيرون محظورة وممنوعة. أجد الكتاب ممتازًا لاقناع الخلقويين ممن هم على استعداد للاطلاع على وجهة النظر العلمية، خصوصًا وأن الكاتب يطرح هذه المواضيع بطريقة لا تهدد الإيمان، وبالتالي لا تطغى العاطفة الدينية على المتلقي والتي غالبًا ما تجعله يرفض هذه النظرية. الكاتب مطلّع بشكل مكثّف على حجج الخلقويين، بل ويعرف دوافعهم كذلك، لهذا فردوده عليهم قوية جدًا وتدمّر حججهم بشكل جميل وأنيق.
في القسم الأخير من الكتاب انخفض مستوى الكاتب بعض الشيء بسبب حجم المواضيع التي تناولها، وكذلك بسبب بعض الأخطاء المنطقية التي وقع فيها. لا أعني أن هذه الفصول ضعيفة، بل أن تقديم الكاتب لها ممتاز وشرحه واضح، إلا أن بعض الحجج والردود التي يطرحها بدت لي قاصرة وأضعف من تلك التي يطرحها في بداية الكتاب. فموضوع مثل الإرادة الحرة لا يمكن تناوله بهذا الشكل البسيط، وكذلك موضوع الشرور الطبيعية لا يصلح الرد عليه بالإرادة الحرة فقط. أما موضوع الحتمية ومبدأ اللايقين فالكاتب لا يبرر وجهة نظره بشكل قوي، فبعض علماء الفيزياء من أمثال كارلو روفيلي* كتبوا في هذا الموضوع وبينوا أن الحتمية لا تلغى بشكل كامل، بل تتحوّل إلى حتمية احتمالية، وأن هذا المقدار من العشوائية لا يؤدي إلى الإرادة الحرة، إلا إذا قلنا أن الإرادة الحرة تعني أن تصبح خيارات الإنسان محكومة بالصدفة، تمامًا كمن يرمي النرد ومن ثم يقوم بعمل ما بناءً على النتيجة التي تظهر له. أما الاعتراض الأهم الذي ذكره روفيلي فهو وجود أمور عشوائية أخرى غير ميكانيكا الكم، فمثلًا حركة ذرات الهواء في الغرفة التي أجلس بها حاليًا عشوائية كذلك، وهذا يعني ألا حاجة للاستشهاد بميكانيكا الكم في هذه الأمور.
إنه كتاب قيم وهو يتناول موضوعًا بات يظهر بشكل متكرر على الساحة الفكرية، ويقدمه بأسلوب ممتاز.
*راجع مقال Free will, determinism, quantum theory and statistical fluctuations: A physicist's take
https://www.edge.org/conversation/car...
ينتصر للنظرية العلمية ويوفّق بينها وبين الدين
محمد الجمري – 14 فبراير 2017
عدد الكلمات: 1600
لطالما كانت نظرية التطوّر موضوعًا ساخنًا للجدل بين مؤيدٍ يرى أنها تكشف خطأ الأديان وتشكّك في وجود الخالق، ومعارضٍ يرى فيها خديعة كبرى اختقلها الماديّون للقضاء على التديّن ونشر أفكارهم الإلحادية. في هذا الكتاب الذي حمل عنوان «العثور على إله دارون: بحث عالمٍ عن أرضيّةٍ مشتركة بين الله والتطور» يطرح علينا البيولوجي كينيث ميلر وجهة نظر لا يقبلها أي من الفريقين السابقين، فهو يؤكد صحة النظرية ويرد على الاعتراضات المثارة ضدها من قبل «الخلقويين»، وهم من يرفضون نظرية التطور ويؤمنون –بأشكال وصور مختلفة- بوجود خلق مباشر للكائنات الحية من العدم. وفي نفس الوقت فإن الكاتب يرفض ما يسميه «آلهة الإلحاد» الذي دمجوا رؤاهم الفلسفية المادية بالمخرجات العلمية، وبالتالي أوصلوا رسالة مفادها أن قبول العلم، وبالتحديد نظرية التطور يستلزم عدم الإيمان بوجود خالق أو غاية في الكون. وفي النهاية يطرح الكاتب رؤيته للتوفيق بين الدين والتطوّر.
يبدأ الكاتب بالتأكيد على أهمية ومحورية نظرية التطور بالنسبة لعلوم الحياة (البيولوجيا)، حيث أنها هي النقطة الرئيسية والمبدأ المنظّم والمركز المنطقي لكل تخصصات البيولويجيا اليوم. بل أن تأثيرها قد فاق مجرّد كونها نظرية علمية، فتأثرت بها تخصصات الإنسانيات، والفلسفة والسياسة والثقافة بشكل عام. يروي الكاتب قصة تعرّفه على الأفكار التطوّرية أيام شبابه، وكيف أنه اتجه للقراءة لمآرب أخرى، ولكن هذا العالَم الجديد نجح في جذبه بقوة. يعبّر الكاتب عن استيائه من اعتماد الكثير من اللادينيين على نظرية التطور لنقد الأديان ويرى أن هذا من أكبر العوامل التي تؤدي إلى نفور قطاع كبير من العامة من نظرية التطور، فكثير من الناس باتوا يساوون بينها وبين الإلحاد، وحسب وجهة نظره فهذا لا يمكن أن يصب في صالح العلم. كثير من الطلاب والأساتذة استغربوا ويستغربون من إيمان ميلر بوجود إله رغم كونه مقرًا كذلك بالتطور، فهناك افتراض عام في عالم الأكاديميا أن الشخص ما إن يتعلم ويتثقف فإنه سرعانما يترك التدين.
ينتقل الكاتب بعد هذا لشرح نظرية التطور وإثبات صحتها، فيبدأ بسرد تاريخ الاكتشافات الأحفورية والجيولوجية التي أدت بالتدريج إلى ظهور نظرية التطور، ومن ثم يستعرض أبرز الأدلة التي تؤكد حدوث التطور. يشبّه الكاتب العلماء بالمحققين الذين يبحثون عن الأدلة التي تشير لوقوع الجريمة، ويستنكر على من يقول بعدم قدرتنا معرفة الماضي بسبب عدم وجودنا فيه، ويؤكد بأمثلة من علم الفلك كيف أن العلماء استطاعوا معرفة الكثير عن النجوم كدرجة حرارة سطحها، ومكوناتها الذرية، وكتلتها، وموقعها بالنسبة لنا وسرعة حركتها، كل ذلك دون أن تطأ قدمهم أو قدم أي مسبار سطح هذه النجوم، التي انتهى بعضها من الوجود منذ ملايين أو مليارات السنين. يؤكد الكاتب كذلك الطبيعة المادية للعلم، وجدوى هذه الطريقة ونجاحها في تفسير الواقع، رغم كونها طريقة غير مطلقة اليقين، أي أنها قابلة للتغيير مع ظهور أدلة جديدة.
يأخذنا بعد ذلك إلى علاقة التطور بالدين، فيقول بصراحة أن الدين (متمثلًا في اليهودية، المسيحية والإسلام) -أو على الأقل الطرح التقليدي له- يتعارض مع التطور، فكلاهما يطرحان قصة مختلفة عن ظهور الحياة والإنسان. يرى الكاتب أن فهمنا للكتب المقدسة يجب أن يتطوّر مع تقدم الجنس البشري، فكما أننا نعلم اليوم أن الأرض ليست مركز الكون والخليقة، فكذلك يجب أن يتطوّر فهمنا لله من مجرد إله صغير يجلس على عرش أحد القصور إلى إله كبير يملك الكون كله وأن قصة الخلق الواردة في سفر التكوين ليست سوى أسطورة. لا يطرح الكاتب جميع التفاصيل هنا بل يضعها كمقدمة للفصول الأخيرة التي يشرح فيها كيفية توفيقه بين الدين والتطوّر.
في الفصول الوسطى في الكتاب، يتم التطرق لأبرز حجج الخلقيين والرد عليها، فيقسمهم إلى ثلاثة أصناف، «الإله المخادع»، «الإله الساحر»، و«الإله الميكانيكي». أما النوع الأول فهم الذين يؤمنون بشكل حرفي مطلق بالكتاب المقدس، ومن خلال حساب أعمار البشر المذكورة فيه من آدم إلى يومنا هذا خلصوا إلى أن عمر الكون هو حوالي ستة آلاف سنة فقط، وأن كل المشاهدات التي تؤكد عكس ذلك هي أمور ظاهرية فقط. فبطرحهم هذا فإنه يصورون الله بالمخادع الذي لكي تنجح خطته في تضليلنا قام بوضع جميع الأدلة في الأماكن الدقيقة التي نجدها فيها، وهم كذلك لا يرفضون هنا نظرية التطور فحسب، بل علوم الفلك والفيزياء والكيمياء. إن هذا الطرح عند تحليله بصورة جيدة يدمر كل من الدين والعلم، ومكانه سلة المهملات لا غير. أما أصحاب أطروحة «الإله الساحر» فيقولون أن النظريات الطبيعية المادية غير كافية لتفسير حدوث التطوّر ولا بد من التدخل الإلهي بشكل مستمر وإعجازي لحدوثها. وأخيرًا فإن أتباع «الإله الميكانيكي» يبحثون عن الثغرات في العلم، أي الأمور التي لا تزال قيد البحث، ويقولون بأن الله هو التفسير الوحيد لها وهي حجة تعرف بإسم آخر هو «إله الفراغات».
يرد الكاتب على هذه الحجج بصورة بارعة ورائعة تكشف ضعفها وهشاشتها، ولكن الكاتب لا يقف هنا، فهو يملك تاريخًا طويلًا في مناظرة الخلقويين، وخلال هذه المسيرة كان يبحث عن الدوافع الكامنة وراء رفضهم للتطوّر، وقد توّصل إلى أن للأمر سببين أساسيين، الأول هو الدين والثاني هو عداء بعض العلماء للدين. فالفهم الحرفي للنصوص الدينية هو ما يؤدي إلى تصوّر أنها تتحدث عن حقائق علمية وليس عظات أخلاقية ومُثُل لهداية الناس. يعبّر الكاتب عن إحباطه من تعويل الكثير من المتدينين على عدم قدرة العلم على تفسير بعض الظواهر الطبيعية، وكأن هذا الأمر انتصار للدين، فبعد أن تمكن التقدم العلمي في الفلك والفيزياء من طرق أبواب السماء والتنبؤ بحركة الأجرام فيها، عوّل الكثيرون على أن الكائنات الحية ستبقى عصيّة على التفسير العلمي وبنوا إيمانهم على ذلك، ولكن تقدم العلم أظهر أن هذه الكائنات كذلك يمكن فهمها بصورة مادية. يعود الكاتب بعد هذا لانتقاد الاطروحات الإلحادية لبعض العلماء والتي يرى أنها تجعل من فكرة التطور فكرة خطيرة حقًا ومهددة للدين، مما يدفع كثير من المتدينين لرفضها، ويخص في انتقاداته كلًا من ريتشارد دوكنز، دانييل دانيت وإدوارد ويلسون مع آخرين.
وفي الفصلين الأخير يطرح الكاتب رؤيته التوفيقية بين الدين والتطوّر، حيث أن يرى خطأ مقولة أن التطوّر يؤدي في النهاية إلى الإلحاد والمادية، ويرى إمكانية قبول التطور مع الاحتفاظ بالإيمان بالله والثوابت الدينية. يعود الكاتب إلى تاريخ الأفكار المادية في القرون الثلاثة الماضية، وكيف أدى النجاح العلمي إلى بروز فكرة الحتمية التي يرى أنها تؤدي للإلحاد. ولكن الكاتب يستدرك، فيشير إلى ثورة ميكانيكا الكم في الفيزياء التي خرجت لنا بمبدأ غريب هو «مبدأ اللايقين»، والذي يشير إلى عدم إمكانية التنبؤ بموقع وسرعة الجزيئات الصغيرة كالإلكترون بصورة دقيقة. إن عدم الدقة هذا ليس بسبب ضعف أجهزة الرصد، بل هو أمر مبدئي، أي أنه لا يزول حتى مع ظهور أجهزة أكثر دقة. يخلص الكاتب إلى أن هذا يعني وجود ثقرة في قانون السببية ويؤدي إلى سقوط الحتمية، وبالتالي وجود مساحة لحرية الإنسان في الاختيار ولله للتدخل بشكل مستمر في الكون، حيث أن اللايقين هذا يمتد للبيولوجيا عن طريق الطفرات الجينية. يحرص الكاتب على التفريق بين العشوائية وبين اللايقينية، فالأولى تعني تساوي كفة جميع الاحتمالات، بينما في الثانية هناك أحداث أكثر أو أقل احتملًا من الأخرى.
يطرح الكاتب فكرة تشبه إحدى المنشورات التي سبق لي طرحها على أحد مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وهي أن الخلقويين يقبلون التفسيرات العلمية المادية عن الأمور التي تحدث في الحاضر، فلا مشكلة لديهم مثلًا في التفسيرات العلمية لسقوط المطر، حدوث البراكين أو خسوف الشمس، ولكنهم يرفضون التفسيرات عندما يتعلق الأمر بالماضي فقط. يضيف الكاتب أن هذا يعني بصورة أخرى أن هؤلاء الخلقويين لا يرون قدرة الله إلا في الماضي، فهم بهذا الطرح يتصورون الله بعيدًا عن الكون، صنعه وتركه، وهذا ما يعرف بالإله الربوبي (مذهب الربوبية). ولكنهم ينكرون ذلك ويقولون بتدخل الله المستمر في الكون، وهنا يظهر التناقض، فإذا كان تدخل الله مستمرًا فلماذا هذا الفصل بين طريقة هذا التدخل في الماضي والحاضر؟ يؤكد الكاتب أن قدرة الله تسري في الماضي والحاضر والمستقبل ولا بد أن نفهمها بنفس الطريقة وهي الطريقة العلمية. ينتقد الكاتب كذلك القراءات الحرفية للنصوص الدينية والتي يرى أنها تؤدي لتناقضات كثيرة ولا يصح الأخذ بها، ويستشهد هنا برأي القديس أوغسطين الذي حذَر في كتاباته في القرن الرابع الميلادي من الأخذ بحرفية النصوص لأن ذلك يضر بالدين ولا ينفعه.
يختم الكاتب بتقديم عدد من الحجج على وجود الله من قبيل دقة الثوابت الكونية، ويرد على مشكلة الشر بحجة الإرادة الحرة، ويقول بعدم منافاة العشوائية الموجودة في نظرية التطور مع وجود الله، حيث أن العشوائية موجودة في كثير من الأمور الأخرى كذلك كالأحداث التاريخية الكبيرة والتي لا يرى أحد أنها تعارض مشيئة الله، بل أنها من ضمن خطته للكون. يخلص الكاتب إلى أن الله وضع قوانين الكون التي نراها، وصممها بحيث تسمح له بالتدخل وقت يشاء، حيث وضع ثقرة في قانون السببية نجدها في ميكانيكا الكم.
التقييم
بشكل عام أسلوب الكاتب سلس وواضح، وهو يقدم المواضيع بشكل تدريجي ويطرح تشبيهات ومقارنات ممتازة تسهّل عملية الفهم. أدهشتني وأعجبتني صراحة الكاتب في طرح مواضيع وأسئلة يعتبرها الكثيرون محظورة وممنوعة. أجد الكتاب ممتازًا لاقناع الخلقويين ممن هم على استعداد للاطلاع على وجهة النظر العلمية، خصوصًا وأن الكاتب يطرح هذه المواضيع بطريقة لا تهدد الإيمان، وبالتالي لا تطغى العاطفة الدينية على المتلقي والتي غالبًا ما تجعله يرفض هذه النظرية. الكاتب مطلّع بشكل مكثّف على حجج الخلقويين، بل ويعرف دوافعهم كذلك، لهذا فردوده عليهم قوية جدًا وتدمّر حججهم بشكل جميل وأنيق.
في القسم الأخير من الكتاب انخفض مستوى الكاتب بعض الشيء بسبب حجم المواضيع التي تناولها، وكذلك بسبب بعض الأخطاء المنطقية التي وقع فيها. لا أعني أن هذه الفصول ضعيفة، بل أن تقديم الكاتب لها ممتاز وشرحه واضح، إلا أن بعض الحجج والردود التي يطرحها بدت لي قاصرة وأضعف من تلك التي يطرحها في بداية الكتاب. فموضوع مثل الإرادة الحرة لا يمكن تناوله بهذا الشكل البسيط، وكذلك موضوع الشرور الطبيعية لا يصلح الرد عليه بالإرادة الحرة فقط. أما موضوع الحتمية ومبدأ اللايقين فالكاتب لا يبرر وجهة نظره بشكل قوي، فبعض علماء الفيزياء من أمثال كارلو روفيلي* كتبوا في هذا الموضوع وبينوا أن الحتمية لا تلغى بشكل كامل، بل تتحوّل إلى حتمية احتمالية، وأن هذا المقدار من العشوائية لا يؤدي إلى الإرادة الحرة، إلا إذا قلنا أن الإرادة الحرة تعني أن تصبح خيارات الإنسان محكومة بالصدفة، تمامًا كمن يرمي النرد ومن ثم يقوم بعمل ما بناءً على النتيجة التي تظهر له. أما الاعتراض الأهم الذي ذكره روفيلي فهو وجود أمور عشوائية أخرى غير ميكانيكا الكم، فمثلًا حركة ذرات الهواء في الغرفة التي أجلس بها حاليًا عشوائية كذلك، وهذا يعني ألا حاجة للاستشهاد بميكانيكا الكم في هذه الأمور.
إنه كتاب قيم وهو يتناول موضوعًا بات يظهر بشكل متكرر على الساحة الفكرية، ويقدمه بأسلوب ممتاز.
*راجع مقال Free will, determinism, quantum theory and statistical fluctuations: A physicist's take
https://www.edge.org/conversation/car...
January 5, 2008
Ken Miller is a Christian and a biologist at Brown University, and one of the major anti-creationist debaters. I really liked this well-argued dismantling of intelligent design and other creationist arguments from a scientific perspective.
His theological reflections weren't as deep as I would have liked, but Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science covers that angle.
Christians really need to be informed that A)evolution is very well-supported science, and B)it doesn't conflict with the Christian faith.
When it's painted as a black and white issue with two extremes: atheistic materialists on the one hand and biblical literalist crusaders on the other, many more people are led away from the faith than towards it.
Christians -- Don't be afraid to question what you've been taught!
His theological reflections weren't as deep as I would have liked, but Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science covers that angle.
Christians really need to be informed that A)evolution is very well-supported science, and B)it doesn't conflict with the Christian faith.
When it's painted as a black and white issue with two extremes: atheistic materialists on the one hand and biblical literalist crusaders on the other, many more people are led away from the faith than towards it.
Christians -- Don't be afraid to question what you've been taught!
November 8, 2012
I chose this deliberately after reading The God Delusion- Dawkins pretty clearly thinks that religion is incompatible with science, and I wanted to read the POV of someone who thinks the opposite.
I didn't get as much out of this book as I'd hoped- it seems to be more aimed at people who believe in God, but not evolution. (So clearly I am not the audience) Occasionally Miller will make dismissive reference to 'non-believers' and 'materialists', but he didn't really address their arguments in depth. I think this was intentional- he's not out to convert anyone, and admits that he can't provide scientific proof of God- he just wants to say that science doesn't *disprove* God. I wish, though, that he'd explained a little bit more about why he *does* believe in God, not just why it's *possible*.
I also wish he'd explored more of the implications of God, because I find that sort of thing interesting. Unfortunately, he dismisses a lot of things as ineffability. Why did God take so long to create people? It's a mystery! Who are we to say we know why God does what he does? Okay, fine, yes, but you *do* think you know some things! You seem convinced God loves you, for instance, and that seems to be a pretty big bit of mind-reading. I can't even always tell if other human beings even like me, and I understand them a lot better.
His theory seems to be that God created the universe and the laws in it in such a way that they would be hospitable to life. (This is known as the Strong Anthropic principle, by the way.) Okay. And that He (and Miller's God seems to be a He) knew that evolution on Earth (and possibly other planets) would eventually lead to life that was intelligent enough to... um. Love him, I guess? Worship him? I don't know, this is where religion in general fails to make sense to me, but I'll go with it. So at a certain point, when humans had evolved into something capable of understanding Him, he gave them a soul. So... what point was that, exactly? I mean, was there literally an Adam and Eve early homo sapiens? Did all their kids have souls but the others not have them? Were their kids marrying unsouled humans, or did all the humans that existed get souls at the same time? I mean, either way, you've got some homo sapiens that don't have souls until later in life, or you've got unsouled parents giving birth to children with souls, or... I don't know! (Also, does this mean that cats and dogs don't have souls? Because I will agree with Will Rogers, the Mahabharata and the Twilight Zone- if heaven doesn't have cats, I don't want to go there.) And when do Heaven and Hell (which, again, Miller clearly believes in) come into being? And *why*?
To give Miller a bit of a break, he's not *trying* to say he knows the answer to these questions, but I just come back to wondering why he believes in what he *does* 'know' about God.
Reading between the lines, I think he believes- and assumes that his reader believes- that there are ways other than the scientific method that one can make discoveries about truth- because as he admits, you can't scientifically *prove* God. But he doesn't say what those other ways *are*, and I'm *interested* in that. I don't know if I'd be convinced, but I want to know how Miller- who has clearly thought about this a lot- thinks it works.
Coming from the other angle, I don't know if this would convince religious folks that evolution is true, and that it doesn't mean they can't believe in God. I hope it does- I want Dawkins to be wrong, I want science and religion to be able to co-exist- because science is awesome, and I want as many people to love it as possible.
I didn't get as much out of this book as I'd hoped- it seems to be more aimed at people who believe in God, but not evolution. (So clearly I am not the audience) Occasionally Miller will make dismissive reference to 'non-believers' and 'materialists', but he didn't really address their arguments in depth. I think this was intentional- he's not out to convert anyone, and admits that he can't provide scientific proof of God- he just wants to say that science doesn't *disprove* God. I wish, though, that he'd explained a little bit more about why he *does* believe in God, not just why it's *possible*.
I also wish he'd explored more of the implications of God, because I find that sort of thing interesting. Unfortunately, he dismisses a lot of things as ineffability. Why did God take so long to create people? It's a mystery! Who are we to say we know why God does what he does? Okay, fine, yes, but you *do* think you know some things! You seem convinced God loves you, for instance, and that seems to be a pretty big bit of mind-reading. I can't even always tell if other human beings even like me, and I understand them a lot better.
His theory seems to be that God created the universe and the laws in it in such a way that they would be hospitable to life. (This is known as the Strong Anthropic principle, by the way.) Okay. And that He (and Miller's God seems to be a He) knew that evolution on Earth (and possibly other planets) would eventually lead to life that was intelligent enough to... um. Love him, I guess? Worship him? I don't know, this is where religion in general fails to make sense to me, but I'll go with it. So at a certain point, when humans had evolved into something capable of understanding Him, he gave them a soul. So... what point was that, exactly? I mean, was there literally an Adam and Eve early homo sapiens? Did all their kids have souls but the others not have them? Were their kids marrying unsouled humans, or did all the humans that existed get souls at the same time? I mean, either way, you've got some homo sapiens that don't have souls until later in life, or you've got unsouled parents giving birth to children with souls, or... I don't know! (Also, does this mean that cats and dogs don't have souls? Because I will agree with Will Rogers, the Mahabharata and the Twilight Zone- if heaven doesn't have cats, I don't want to go there.) And when do Heaven and Hell (which, again, Miller clearly believes in) come into being? And *why*?
To give Miller a bit of a break, he's not *trying* to say he knows the answer to these questions, but I just come back to wondering why he believes in what he *does* 'know' about God.
Reading between the lines, I think he believes- and assumes that his reader believes- that there are ways other than the scientific method that one can make discoveries about truth- because as he admits, you can't scientifically *prove* God. But he doesn't say what those other ways *are*, and I'm *interested* in that. I don't know if I'd be convinced, but I want to know how Miller- who has clearly thought about this a lot- thinks it works.
Coming from the other angle, I don't know if this would convince religious folks that evolution is true, and that it doesn't mean they can't believe in God. I hope it does- I want Dawkins to be wrong, I want science and religion to be able to co-exist- because science is awesome, and I want as many people to love it as possible.
August 6, 2022
Kenneth R. Miller I will remember your name
This is the greatest scientific book I have read about God ...
This is the greatest scientific book I have read about God ...
April 27, 2009
Enlightening. World-view altering. I think it is a "MUST READ" for anyone interested in either science OR religion. I love both.
Enjoyable to read and fun to chew on. There is enough science, enough philosophy, enough logical reasoning, and enough religious thought to make one pause, think, and digest; however, it is not daunting or intimidating, just thought provoking.
I liked Jared Smith's 2/3/08 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." This book is both "God-loving" and "proves evolution." How surprising!
I have intensely studied biology for 20 years. I have taken advanced courses in both evolution and molecular evolution. I understand the biology. But I am also a person who likes to avoid conflict, and I never bothered to make any firm decision about where I stood in the conflict. After reading this book, I now know where I stand. Heard of DNA? Do you believe that it is a double helix? (I teach Genetics. Trust me, it's a double helix.) I'm convinced that there is significantly more evidence that evolution occurred (and is still occurring) than there is that DNA is a double helix.
Many of you, including friends, who read this may say "Duh, those God-people sure are slow to accept the obvious." More of you, however, likely can identify with wondering whether creation stories are of necessity mutually exclusive, or how evolution fits (if at all) with the reality of God. Dr. Miller shows that evolution does fit with God, and does so in a way that grants us free will. He also concludes that most of the reasons that we have feared evolution only conflict with Puritanical views of a Watch-Maker God that we don't believe in anyways.
Enjoyable to read and fun to chew on. There is enough science, enough philosophy, enough logical reasoning, and enough religious thought to make one pause, think, and digest; however, it is not daunting or intimidating, just thought provoking.
I liked Jared Smith's 2/3/08 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." This book is both "God-loving" and "proves evolution." How surprising!
I have intensely studied biology for 20 years. I have taken advanced courses in both evolution and molecular evolution. I understand the biology. But I am also a person who likes to avoid conflict, and I never bothered to make any firm decision about where I stood in the conflict. After reading this book, I now know where I stand. Heard of DNA? Do you believe that it is a double helix? (I teach Genetics. Trust me, it's a double helix.) I'm convinced that there is significantly more evidence that evolution occurred (and is still occurring) than there is that DNA is a double helix.
Many of you, including friends, who read this may say "Duh, those God-people sure are slow to accept the obvious." More of you, however, likely can identify with wondering whether creation stories are of necessity mutually exclusive, or how evolution fits (if at all) with the reality of God. Dr. Miller shows that evolution does fit with God, and does so in a way that grants us free will. He also concludes that most of the reasons that we have feared evolution only conflict with Puritanical views of a Watch-Maker God that we don't believe in anyways.
January 15, 2015
In the past 700 years science has had a way of humbling humans more and more, once we were the center of everything, created on day 6 in the image of God. First we learn that everything doesn't revolve around the Earth, instead we circle the sun. The sun isn't anything more than just one of billions of stars in the Milky Way, which itself is just one of billions of galaxies. The earth wasn't created created in 1 day, its billions of years old and humans aren't the first dominant species but instead just the latest in a large series. We weren't even created in one day but instead we've evolved over billions of years from a multitude of species. In this book Miller sets out to present the evidence for evolution and then later to shows that you can still believe in God and evolution.
The first half of the book presents the evidence for evolution while at the same time taking on the arguments from young earth creationists, intelligent design and theistic evolution. This is the first book on evolution I've read so I don't know how it compares to others, but its pretty convincing (well I think, I already accepted it). I liked how Miller presented the other sides arguments and then showed how they are mistaken, but doing so in a civil manner. The second half of the book deals with naturalism and the view that evolution has removed the need for God. He goes on to argue why God and evolution can coexists. Truthfully, in my opinion it almost seemed at times like the God he presents is one that I picture with open theology much more than the common one presented in Milers Catholic background. In a way I think I can accept this view of God sometimes more than the one presented in Calvinism which is so sovereign that he even controls or predestines our belief in Jesus. With evolution and a less active God, harder things to accept like disease or things like bedbugs become more tolerable, although sometimes it did seem that Miller was taking a deist approach even though several times he spoke against it. Overall I loved this book and it got me interested in reading more on evolution and especially interested in reading about genomes and DNA.
From my perspective having an evangelical background, I think the biggest hurdle to getting evolution or even an old earth model accepted, is getting the evangelical community to start to accept that Genesis isn't a scientific account of the early creation of the earth and man. Miller briefly mentioned this and showed how even early church fathers like Augustine didn't take the literal 6 day approach, but this is still going to be a battle. From my point of view to accept that the earth wasn't created in 6 days is to at least have to partially start to question inerrancy. Sadly there are many people who would rather put their head in the sand than confront these pressing issues.
The first half of the book presents the evidence for evolution while at the same time taking on the arguments from young earth creationists, intelligent design and theistic evolution. This is the first book on evolution I've read so I don't know how it compares to others, but its pretty convincing (well I think, I already accepted it). I liked how Miller presented the other sides arguments and then showed how they are mistaken, but doing so in a civil manner. The second half of the book deals with naturalism and the view that evolution has removed the need for God. He goes on to argue why God and evolution can coexists. Truthfully, in my opinion it almost seemed at times like the God he presents is one that I picture with open theology much more than the common one presented in Milers Catholic background. In a way I think I can accept this view of God sometimes more than the one presented in Calvinism which is so sovereign that he even controls or predestines our belief in Jesus. With evolution and a less active God, harder things to accept like disease or things like bedbugs become more tolerable, although sometimes it did seem that Miller was taking a deist approach even though several times he spoke against it. Overall I loved this book and it got me interested in reading more on evolution and especially interested in reading about genomes and DNA.
From my perspective having an evangelical background, I think the biggest hurdle to getting evolution or even an old earth model accepted, is getting the evangelical community to start to accept that Genesis isn't a scientific account of the early creation of the earth and man. Miller briefly mentioned this and showed how even early church fathers like Augustine didn't take the literal 6 day approach, but this is still going to be a battle. From my point of view to accept that the earth wasn't created in 6 days is to at least have to partially start to question inerrancy. Sadly there are many people who would rather put their head in the sand than confront these pressing issues.
August 15, 2007
First and foremost, Ken Miller is an excellent science writer, expressing things plainly and concisely in a wholly accessible manner that other science writers should study. This is essential in dealing with things like irreducible complexity, which most people haven't even heard of, let alone understand. As an evolutionary scientist and Christian, he represents a sorely misunderstood middleground between Christian creationists and atheist Darwinists. His arguments against traditional intelligent design theory are thorough and convincing for the non-hardcore science reading public. This is a great book to check out if you're interested in some of the ways evolution probably works. His defense of his faith is weaker, which is somewhat understandable; it's harder to prove and does not deal exclusively with scientific method like his arguments for chance or natural selection. His conclusion of an omnipotent entity seems closer to Charles Darwin's own, one that is unknowable and that is not working entirely for human benefit. Had he expounded more on his (or the ramifications of Darwin's) beliefs, more scientists probably would have given the book credit.
July 28, 2024
Such a frustrating book. Sloppy writing. Incomplete arguments.
He touches on many ideas, but never finishes a point. He just keeps yelling that certain things are “facts” and that all questions are answered. Trust “dah science” or you're a fool. But the evidence he presents doesn’t answer the questions he brings up. Then, before he can sufficiently answer a question, he jumps on to another idea. Most of the time his answers can be summed up as “nuh-uh.” Then he moves on.
The subtitle is about common ground between God and evolution. But Miller shuts down any arguments for creationism, intelligent design, a young earth, or doubts about evolutionary theory. He dismisses the 7-day creation story as old, outdated, and naïve. “It’s time we grow up and leave the garden” he says. Them ancients were so dumb, with their beliefs about gods. We moderns are so much smarter and more enlightened now.
He blatantly ignores fundamental conflicts between evolution and the biblical creation story—such as sin, disease, and death entering the world post-fall vs. pre-fall. Then in another breath he asks why the “Designer” (God) made so many “mistakes.”
I was going to give a point-by-point refutation of all his ideas, but it’s too exhausting to keep track of and the writing is too frustrating to deal with. His ego, prejudice, and ignorance is astounding.
Mentions these books:
--Darwin on Trial
--Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
--Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
He touches on many ideas, but never finishes a point. He just keeps yelling that certain things are “facts” and that all questions are answered. Trust “dah science” or you're a fool. But the evidence he presents doesn’t answer the questions he brings up. Then, before he can sufficiently answer a question, he jumps on to another idea. Most of the time his answers can be summed up as “nuh-uh.” Then he moves on.
The subtitle is about common ground between God and evolution. But Miller shuts down any arguments for creationism, intelligent design, a young earth, or doubts about evolutionary theory. He dismisses the 7-day creation story as old, outdated, and naïve. “It’s time we grow up and leave the garden” he says. Them ancients were so dumb, with their beliefs about gods. We moderns are so much smarter and more enlightened now.
He blatantly ignores fundamental conflicts between evolution and the biblical creation story—such as sin, disease, and death entering the world post-fall vs. pre-fall. Then in another breath he asks why the “Designer” (God) made so many “mistakes.”
I was going to give a point-by-point refutation of all his ideas, but it’s too exhausting to keep track of and the writing is too frustrating to deal with. His ego, prejudice, and ignorance is astounding.
Mentions these books:
--Darwin on Trial
--Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
--Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
August 29, 2009
I enjoyed this book most at the beginning and decreasingly as it went on, despite the fact that many of Miller's views seem more or less right to me. It was helpful to see the clarity of the physical evidence for the great age of the solar system, particularly the chart of radioactive nuclides on pp. 70-71. (If this doesn't mean anything to you, no worries. Miller explains it clearly.) It was also helpful to know that Phillip Johnson is a lawyer, not a biologist, and that some of Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex after all. But as Miller moved further from biology and physics and closer to theology and philosophy (my own area), the cracks began to show. The discussion of chance and divine providence lost some opportunities and ignored the history of Christian thought on these topics. (For some powerful thinking on these topics, readers should consider Peter van Inwagen's "The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God" in God, Knowledge, and Mystery and Thomas Flint's Divine Providence: A Molinist Account.) I’m glad to see a Christian biologist standing up and saying that he believes in evolution and believes in God. But the attempts at interdisciplinary work were not as successful as one might hope.
June 28, 2008
"Theistic evolutionists" get attacked from both sides. From "creationists" they are attacked for compromising with the theory of evolution. And from their atheist colleagues they are attacked for joining the religious in believing in God. Kenneth Miller spends this book articulating why he believes in both God and evolution.
The first half of the book focuses on the theory of evolution - it is true, best explaining all the evidence and showing how life originated. He attacks young earth creationists as well as intelligent design advocates. Basic point: the theory of evolution explains how we got here; deal with it.
When he turns to discussing God his basic point is that when scientists argue that evolution disproves God they are stepping out of the realm of science and making a claim beyond what the evidence shows. He talks a lot about quantum mechanics showing the basic randomness of the universe.
Of course, Miller goes into many more details and arguments. I found this book thought-provoking, somewhat liberating, and challenging. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the relation of science and faith.
The first half of the book focuses on the theory of evolution - it is true, best explaining all the evidence and showing how life originated. He attacks young earth creationists as well as intelligent design advocates. Basic point: the theory of evolution explains how we got here; deal with it.
When he turns to discussing God his basic point is that when scientists argue that evolution disproves God they are stepping out of the realm of science and making a claim beyond what the evidence shows. He talks a lot about quantum mechanics showing the basic randomness of the universe.
Of course, Miller goes into many more details and arguments. I found this book thought-provoking, somewhat liberating, and challenging. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the relation of science and faith.
January 7, 2008
This is the rare book that attempts to bridge the divide between fundamentalist Christians and atheist evolutionary biologists. Miller has tendrils iin both camps, being a Brown University biologist (and author of the the textbook at issue in the Dover Evolution Trial) and a committed Roman Catholic. In the first half of the book Miller ably displays the flaws in Intelligent Design while sympathetically attempting to understand what might drive people to embrace it. In the second half he attacks the arrogance of scientists that so often drives people of faith away. The ideal ending of this work would be for Miller to present a deep and convincing reconciliation of traditional faith and evolution and he does try. Unfortunately this is probably the weakest and most sketchily rendered portion of the book, leaving readers with a slightly bittersweet taste as they close the book.
May 15, 2008
Overall I thought this book was pretty interesting, and I was amused by how easily and thoroughly Miller dispatches all the intelligent design arguments. I wanted a little more from the last part of the book, in which Miller explains the compatibility of religion and science, and how science actually makes his faith stronger. I suppose what I really want is a conversation with him, so I can ask all the questions his book raised for me but didn't answer adequately.
July 8, 2018
3.5 stars.
The first half of the book is a strong defense of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Here, Miller speaks as the cell biologist he is and approaches the subject with authority against various anti-evolution beliefs. I didn't need to be won over, so I might not be very objective, but I found his arguments extremely persuasive. The first half was a little too science heavy for my liking but I suppose it was necessary to lay the groundwork to support the theory of evolution.
The second half of the book is where Miller slowly offers his thoughts on how belief in God and the theory of evolution are completely compatible. Miller the scientist speaks authoritatively while Miller the Catholic leaves room for atheism or agnosticism. He's not pushy, judgmental or dismissive of other's beliefs and it comes across well. As is necessarily true in matters of faith he acknowledges that neither believers nor non believers can definitely prove or disprove the existence of God, he merely offers the reasons why he's a believer in God. Miller's lack of stridency is very refreshing for such a charged subject.
This isn't a book I would read again from front to back but I did flag a number of passages and would go back to read portions here and there.
The first half of the book is a strong defense of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Here, Miller speaks as the cell biologist he is and approaches the subject with authority against various anti-evolution beliefs. I didn't need to be won over, so I might not be very objective, but I found his arguments extremely persuasive. The first half was a little too science heavy for my liking but I suppose it was necessary to lay the groundwork to support the theory of evolution.
The second half of the book is where Miller slowly offers his thoughts on how belief in God and the theory of evolution are completely compatible. Miller the scientist speaks authoritatively while Miller the Catholic leaves room for atheism or agnosticism. He's not pushy, judgmental or dismissive of other's beliefs and it comes across well. As is necessarily true in matters of faith he acknowledges that neither believers nor non believers can definitely prove or disprove the existence of God, he merely offers the reasons why he's a believer in God. Miller's lack of stridency is very refreshing for such a charged subject.
This isn't a book I would read again from front to back but I did flag a number of passages and would go back to read portions here and there.
January 18, 2018
While I may not agree with all of his views, I found Kenneth Miller's take on the science/religion dichotomy very interesting, and fairly thorough in his scientific explanations without being over my head (for the most part).
This book doesn't delve much into his experiences with his own personal faith, as most of his references to religion are fairly ecumenical. But this seemed fitting considering he was trying to take a rather "big picture" view.
I think the strongest part of the book for me was his treatment of materialistic atheism, and his assertion that even science doesn't make a very good case for a completely predictable, material universe. His discussion of quantum theory and our utter inability to predict the movements of the smallest particles was very interesting to me because that would ordinarily be way over my head. I've heard plenty of religious objections to a purely materialistic view, so one that involved science was neat too.
This book doesn't delve much into his experiences with his own personal faith, as most of his references to religion are fairly ecumenical. But this seemed fitting considering he was trying to take a rather "big picture" view.
I think the strongest part of the book for me was his treatment of materialistic atheism, and his assertion that even science doesn't make a very good case for a completely predictable, material universe. His discussion of quantum theory and our utter inability to predict the movements of the smallest particles was very interesting to me because that would ordinarily be way over my head. I've heard plenty of religious objections to a purely materialistic view, so one that involved science was neat too.
July 19, 2025
A very complete and well-articulated book that carefully lays out the mountain of evidence showing that evolution has occurred and continues to occur today. At the same time, it points out the limits of science and the compatibility between science and beliefs. Lots of concepts that I will use in my evolution course. 4/5 stars only because the book got repetitive toward the end.
January 6, 2018
The author, a scientist and a Christian, does an excellent job of explaining one way (his own) that there need not be any direct conflict between science and religion.
January 14, 2023
EPIC FAIL—Kenneth Miller is Darwinism’s most articulate American apologist. In person, he’s compelling. You can get away with a lot in a live venue—debate or classroom. It’s when you put yourself in print, and people have the chance to scrutinize your argument, that it better be airtight. In this, Miller fails miserably.
Finding Darwin’s God was his answer to Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, published in 1996. Behe’s book was a mortal challenge to Darwinian Theory that had to be answered, or the whole evolutionary project would be rendered moot.
Behe falsified Darwinian Theory by engaging Darwin’s falsification criterion head on: “If it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” As a biochemist, Behe had found plenty, but he used one example in particular to break the case open: the lowly cilium. And in the process, he established the concept of irreducible complexity.
As Behe states, “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”(39) A nonfunctioning anything is invisible to evolution. “…it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”
On pages 59 through 65 in Darwin’s Black Box, Behe discussed the irreducibly complex structure of the cilium—a whip-like structure composed of three interrelated components: microtubules to provide its structure, nexin linkers to keep it together, and dynein proteins to provide its motion. The cilium needed all three to be functional. Remove one of these essential parts, and function is lost. Irreducible complexity is what Kenneth Miller had to negate and do it decisively or Darwinism was finished.
The problem? He faced an insurmountable challenge—an argument he couldn’t defeat. So, what did he do instead? He obfuscated. He utilized two logical fallacies: equivocation and the strawman. Read it yourself—pages 140 to 143 in Finding Darwin’s God, the most important four pages in the book.
Miller first employs equivocation by repurposing the word “essential”. Behe had used the term specifically to identify the components of the irreducibly complex system: microtubules, nexin linkers and dynein proteins. Each plays its part. Miller’s use of essential subtly redirected the reader, moving them away from those components and to a different issue: the arrangement of the microtubules themselves. He asserted that Behe claimed the 9+2 microtubule arrangement was what made the cilium irreducibly complex, a position Behe never espoused. Thus, the strawman. Miller then goes on to show a number of different arrays—9+1, 9+0, 6+0, 3+0, 9+7 and the odd non-radial pattern found in the fly Monarthropalpus buxi—that demonstrated operational cilia with different microtubule patterns.
Ironically, every one of these alternate configurations had, you guessed it, microtubules, nexin linkers and dynein proteins, making them all irreducibly complex. In other words, Miller didn’t falsify Behe’s argument; he confirmed it six times over. Just laughable.
He finishes with, “What we actually see among cilia and flagella in nature is entirely consistent with Darwin’s call for numerous gradations from the simple to the complex.” In other words, with the wave of his Ph.D., he turns a structural series into an evolutionary series. Wrong again.
The 9+2 configuration is nature’s most pervasive. Miller even admits it’s found in everything from single-celled algae to human sperm (140). In other words, the 9+2 spans the whole of evolutionary history from that single-celled algae found 1.4 billion years ago (more recently thought to be dated 2.5 to 2.8 bya) to mankind who showed up way late to the game—under a million years. The simplest forms, the 3+0 and 6+0 were found in protozoans first seen in the fossil record 750 mya, better than a half billion years after the 9+2; clearly, an inversion of “the simple to the complex”. The 9+0 is found in a type of eel. Eels are chordates who don’t come on the scene until the Cambrian boundary at 530 mya. The rest of the arrangements are found in various flying insects that don’t appear in the fossil record until 220 mya. This is nowhere close to an evolutionary series, but that doesn’t stop Miller from suggesting as much. His whole approach to Behe was ridiculous. Finding Darwin’s God is an epic failure.
At the end of the day, Behe’s argument stands, Miller’s refutation fails, and Darwinism has been falsified using Darwin’s own criterion. And with that, the scientific lynchpin of western secular humanism has been pulled. If “chance and necessity” can’t answer the bell in explaining our living world, what does? Asking and answering that question takes some serious courage. If that’s you, then I might suggest, along with Michael Behe, the works of James Tour, Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe. And a host of others…
Finding Darwin’s God was his answer to Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, published in 1996. Behe’s book was a mortal challenge to Darwinian Theory that had to be answered, or the whole evolutionary project would be rendered moot.
Behe falsified Darwinian Theory by engaging Darwin’s falsification criterion head on: “If it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” As a biochemist, Behe had found plenty, but he used one example in particular to break the case open: the lowly cilium. And in the process, he established the concept of irreducible complexity.
As Behe states, “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”(39) A nonfunctioning anything is invisible to evolution. “…it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”
On pages 59 through 65 in Darwin’s Black Box, Behe discussed the irreducibly complex structure of the cilium—a whip-like structure composed of three interrelated components: microtubules to provide its structure, nexin linkers to keep it together, and dynein proteins to provide its motion. The cilium needed all three to be functional. Remove one of these essential parts, and function is lost. Irreducible complexity is what Kenneth Miller had to negate and do it decisively or Darwinism was finished.
The problem? He faced an insurmountable challenge—an argument he couldn’t defeat. So, what did he do instead? He obfuscated. He utilized two logical fallacies: equivocation and the strawman. Read it yourself—pages 140 to 143 in Finding Darwin’s God, the most important four pages in the book.
Miller first employs equivocation by repurposing the word “essential”. Behe had used the term specifically to identify the components of the irreducibly complex system: microtubules, nexin linkers and dynein proteins. Each plays its part. Miller’s use of essential subtly redirected the reader, moving them away from those components and to a different issue: the arrangement of the microtubules themselves. He asserted that Behe claimed the 9+2 microtubule arrangement was what made the cilium irreducibly complex, a position Behe never espoused. Thus, the strawman. Miller then goes on to show a number of different arrays—9+1, 9+0, 6+0, 3+0, 9+7 and the odd non-radial pattern found in the fly Monarthropalpus buxi—that demonstrated operational cilia with different microtubule patterns.
Ironically, every one of these alternate configurations had, you guessed it, microtubules, nexin linkers and dynein proteins, making them all irreducibly complex. In other words, Miller didn’t falsify Behe’s argument; he confirmed it six times over. Just laughable.
He finishes with, “What we actually see among cilia and flagella in nature is entirely consistent with Darwin’s call for numerous gradations from the simple to the complex.” In other words, with the wave of his Ph.D., he turns a structural series into an evolutionary series. Wrong again.
The 9+2 configuration is nature’s most pervasive. Miller even admits it’s found in everything from single-celled algae to human sperm (140). In other words, the 9+2 spans the whole of evolutionary history from that single-celled algae found 1.4 billion years ago (more recently thought to be dated 2.5 to 2.8 bya) to mankind who showed up way late to the game—under a million years. The simplest forms, the 3+0 and 6+0 were found in protozoans first seen in the fossil record 750 mya, better than a half billion years after the 9+2; clearly, an inversion of “the simple to the complex”. The 9+0 is found in a type of eel. Eels are chordates who don’t come on the scene until the Cambrian boundary at 530 mya. The rest of the arrangements are found in various flying insects that don’t appear in the fossil record until 220 mya. This is nowhere close to an evolutionary series, but that doesn’t stop Miller from suggesting as much. His whole approach to Behe was ridiculous. Finding Darwin’s God is an epic failure.
At the end of the day, Behe’s argument stands, Miller’s refutation fails, and Darwinism has been falsified using Darwin’s own criterion. And with that, the scientific lynchpin of western secular humanism has been pulled. If “chance and necessity” can’t answer the bell in explaining our living world, what does? Asking and answering that question takes some serious courage. If that’s you, then I might suggest, along with Michael Behe, the works of James Tour, Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe. And a host of others…
May 23, 2010
Published in 2007, Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God is probably the most up to date thinking on the creation-evolution debate. I was terribly excited to find it -- it posed the exact question I'd asked: does belief in evolution really threaten belief in God?
He runs through quickly and successfully demolishes -- in my opinion -- the arguments for Young Earth Creationism and for intelligent design. He also successfully summarises the variants of materialist atheism -- Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, etc. Excitingly, he then comes to what I think is the most acute contemporary materalist critique of the existence of God -- the idea that our ethical values themselves are the product of evolution. (An excellent book on this topic, from an atheist's POV, is Matt Ridley's The Evolution of Virtue). Miller traces the history of the idea, showing how it originated from Edward Wilson's extension of evolutionary theory from biology to sociology. In short, ethics like selflessness evolved because in the small group nature of early human society, such ethics were beneficial to the group's survival. This argument very neatly skewers CS Lewis' then powerful but now somewhat outdated argument that materialism cannot account for our strong internal sense of aesthetics, morality, etc.
Here, Miller's book disappointed me a little because he doesn't tackle this head on -- in the sense that he doesn't present any evidence that contradicts or disproves it directly. Rather, first, he presents the sociobiologists' main conclusion -- that materialism can now explain everything about the human condition, from its origins to the need for religious belief itself. If true, this would invalidate God.
Miller shows this conclusion gets ahead of itself. Using discoveries in quantum mechanics, he describes how at the molecular level, the position of elections is inherently unknowable and uncertain. We know with a degree of statistical probability that an election will locate itself in A or B, but we can never say beforehand whether it will be A or B. This is true also of genetic variation -- there is no definite outcome. If I read him rightly, by extension, homo sapiens was simply one of many possible species, and our ethics one of many possible value systems.
Thus, as scientists probe deeper into the nature of the material world, they discovered that what they seek -- complete understanding -- will never be at hand. Science can refine the ranges of the probabilities under different circumstances, but this knowledge is always probabilistic, never deterministic. This discovery means that while it is still an acceptable theory that random chance explains everything, this conclusion is not certain -- it allows for the existence of God.
Miller stops here, at a point where I think he has proven the defensibility of God, but not quite proven him yet. He states that he is a believer, and hints at the reason:
"To the non-believer, that world exists and operates entirely in the absence of God. The self-sufficiency of nature, exemplified most notably by evolution, implies an autonomy that requires neither explanation nor justification in divine terms. Scientifically, that self-sufficiency can be identified, tested, theorised and explored, but its meaning and the reason for its existence cannot be explained or even addressed by science. This -- and not any departure from the discipline of science -- is what distinguishes a believer from a non-believer. To a believer, the world makes sense, human actions have a certain value, and there is a moral order to the universe."
I think Miller stops here because this is ultimately a book about science and religion, and not a personal testimony. I think his point is to logically establish what are, and are not, the valid arguments against the materialists -- and his conclusion is that evolution is true, but this does not negate a role for God, which he cites as the deep psychological reason why many people instinctively reject evolution -- and thereby discredit themselves and their faith -- because of what they see as its implicit suggestion that God is a myth. Miller's main purpose for the book, I think, is to combat this assumption, and thus help to engender faith that is consistent with science, and stronger and more convincing for it.
He runs through quickly and successfully demolishes -- in my opinion -- the arguments for Young Earth Creationism and for intelligent design. He also successfully summarises the variants of materialist atheism -- Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, etc. Excitingly, he then comes to what I think is the most acute contemporary materalist critique of the existence of God -- the idea that our ethical values themselves are the product of evolution. (An excellent book on this topic, from an atheist's POV, is Matt Ridley's The Evolution of Virtue). Miller traces the history of the idea, showing how it originated from Edward Wilson's extension of evolutionary theory from biology to sociology. In short, ethics like selflessness evolved because in the small group nature of early human society, such ethics were beneficial to the group's survival. This argument very neatly skewers CS Lewis' then powerful but now somewhat outdated argument that materialism cannot account for our strong internal sense of aesthetics, morality, etc.
Here, Miller's book disappointed me a little because he doesn't tackle this head on -- in the sense that he doesn't present any evidence that contradicts or disproves it directly. Rather, first, he presents the sociobiologists' main conclusion -- that materialism can now explain everything about the human condition, from its origins to the need for religious belief itself. If true, this would invalidate God.
Miller shows this conclusion gets ahead of itself. Using discoveries in quantum mechanics, he describes how at the molecular level, the position of elections is inherently unknowable and uncertain. We know with a degree of statistical probability that an election will locate itself in A or B, but we can never say beforehand whether it will be A or B. This is true also of genetic variation -- there is no definite outcome. If I read him rightly, by extension, homo sapiens was simply one of many possible species, and our ethics one of many possible value systems.
Thus, as scientists probe deeper into the nature of the material world, they discovered that what they seek -- complete understanding -- will never be at hand. Science can refine the ranges of the probabilities under different circumstances, but this knowledge is always probabilistic, never deterministic. This discovery means that while it is still an acceptable theory that random chance explains everything, this conclusion is not certain -- it allows for the existence of God.
Miller stops here, at a point where I think he has proven the defensibility of God, but not quite proven him yet. He states that he is a believer, and hints at the reason:
"To the non-believer, that world exists and operates entirely in the absence of God. The self-sufficiency of nature, exemplified most notably by evolution, implies an autonomy that requires neither explanation nor justification in divine terms. Scientifically, that self-sufficiency can be identified, tested, theorised and explored, but its meaning and the reason for its existence cannot be explained or even addressed by science. This -- and not any departure from the discipline of science -- is what distinguishes a believer from a non-believer. To a believer, the world makes sense, human actions have a certain value, and there is a moral order to the universe."
I think Miller stops here because this is ultimately a book about science and religion, and not a personal testimony. I think his point is to logically establish what are, and are not, the valid arguments against the materialists -- and his conclusion is that evolution is true, but this does not negate a role for God, which he cites as the deep psychological reason why many people instinctively reject evolution -- and thereby discredit themselves and their faith -- because of what they see as its implicit suggestion that God is a myth. Miller's main purpose for the book, I think, is to combat this assumption, and thus help to engender faith that is consistent with science, and stronger and more convincing for it.
June 1, 2019
Kenneth Miller does a mirror of what Aaron Yilmaz in his book "Deliver Us From Evolution". Yilmaz addresses theology first, and then the science. I think Miller is addressing the science first and then the geology. Like Yilmaz, the case he makes for common ancestry/macro evolution/descent with modification, whatever you want to call it. Is just as overwhelming as Yilmaz' case that convinced me to be an Evolutionary Creationist a year ago.
Miller's case for Theistic Evolution (or Evolutionary Creationism) was powerful. I was impressed by the scientific case that Miller made for common ancestry, but I was even more impressed with how Miller dealt with Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument. I have seen far too many evolutionists (both Christians and Non-Christians) attack straw men of Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument. Most have simply dismissed it as "god of the gaps". I always believed that Behe's LOGIC was sound. That IF the biological factors claimed to be irreducibly complex really were irreducibly complex, then evolution could not hold (or at least a in which God didn't periodically intervene to help nature get over certain hurdles) and that intelligent design of the systems was the best explanation. To me, the only thing that could undercut Behe's argument is that if it were shown that these systems really could be plausibly explained through evolutionary mechanisms. Kenneth Miller does this in a spectaculor and easy to understand manner. The Eye, the blood clotting mechanism, cila, etc. really could have had predecessors for natural selection to act upon.
I do think Miller was a bit condescending in his tone in certain parts of the book. The way he phrased things when arguing against special creation seemed to carry a smarter-than-thou feel to it. That said, I don't think that effects the soundness of his case for Evolutionary Creationism, but it might turn off certain readers who disagree with him, thinking that he thinks they're stupid.
On pages 223-226, Miller talks about The Big Bang. I thought he was going to say how powerful this mainstream scientific evidence was for a transcendent Creator. Instead, he disappointed me by essentially saying that it doesn't resolve the issue of God's existence because for all we know "there is a tendency of matter to create itself from nothingness. If that's the case, the big bang merely marks the moment of that self-creation or the latest oscilaton in a grand series of cosmic cycles: a big bang, followed by a big crunch, followed by another big bang." This is just not accurate. The Big Bang certainly does get us to an absolute beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. The cosmic microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s disproved The Steady State Theory as any cosmology text will tell you. Practically no scientist today is an advocate of The Steady State model for this reason. As for the ocsillating theory, this is plagued by three major issues. For (1), no one has yet been able to produce a mechanism that would cause a universe that collapsed after a period of expansion to begin expanding again. (2) The amount of entropy would be carried over into each new period of ocillation. This means that each round of oscilation will have less and less energy than the oscillations that came before it. Therefore, if this expanding and contracting series were going on from an eternity past, the universe would have run out of usable energy an infinite amount of time ago. Hence, there must be an absolute beginning in which the universe' energy is 100% usable. (3) The Oscilating Universe model runs into the problem of an infinite regression.
The Steady State Model and The Oscilating Models were ways scientists tried to get out of the conclusion that the universe was created by a transcendent Creator. Since these theories were universally abandoned by cosmologists, they have tried other approaches, which I address in my book "The Case For The One True God" and in my blog posts on the Cerebral Faith website.
With that said, Miller was favorable to The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, even if he fails to appreciate the theological implications of The Big Bang.
Later in the same chapter, Miller discusses the relation of God with chance and randomness. Here, I really think his argument was rather weak. This is an area in which the view known as Molinism can be applied to solve the problem. God knew what nature WOULD stochastically do in any given circumstance, and He acted on this knowledge to actualize a world in which evolutionary history unfolded the way that He wanted it to. This isn't to say that I disagreed with what Miller said, it's just that his point could have been made a little stronger if he had employed Molinism, because Molinism shows how "chance" and libertarian free will can be fully compatible with the meticulous control of God. Not explaining HOW God could control "chance" events and free will choices leaves the uninformed reader to appeal to mystery when an appeal to mystery is not needed.
But I agree that "Evolution answers the question of chance and purpose in exactly the same way that history answers questions about the course of human events. To a biologist, evolution is subject to unpredictability just like human history. Evolution it's outcome has no obvious purpose or single goal just like human history. Like Evolution seem to occur without Divine guidance no one seems to think that a religious person engaged in the study of history must find a way that God rigged human events in order to cause the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, or the Holocaust. Yet curiously, that is exactly what many expect of a religious person engaged in a study of Natural History -- they want to know how God could have ensured the success of mammals rise of flowering plants and most especially, the ascent of man."
I agree. But Molinism here would provide a plausible explanation of how He rigged it. The comparison between what appears to be chance events in human history and what appears to be chance events in evolutionary history is a helpful comparison. Molinist or not, all Christians believe that God providentially organizes events that, from a human perspective, appear to be accidental. If the Christian accepts that this is the case in human history, he should have no problem accepting that this could be the case in evolutionary history. Hence, the "randomness" of evolution is not at all incompatible with the doctrine that God created us ON purpose and FOR a purpose.
Overall, this is a pretty good book, but Miller's treatment of the theological and philosophical side of the issue, I found somewhat lacking. He left the interaction between God and randomness ultimately an appeal to mystery and he BARELY touched upon how to see the book of Genesis in light of mainstream science, how Genesis 1-3 and evolution could be compatible. Essentially what he said can be boiled town to "Be open to alternative interpretations". I would recommend that one read this book and suppliment it with John Walton's "The Lost World Of Genesis One" and "The Lost World Of Adam and Eve", and works by Tremper Longman III.
In any case, I admire Kenneth's Miller strong zeal for both science and God, and despite this book's flaws, it has many strengths to it. I would recommend those studying the creation/evolution debate not neglect this work.
Miller's case for Theistic Evolution (or Evolutionary Creationism) was powerful. I was impressed by the scientific case that Miller made for common ancestry, but I was even more impressed with how Miller dealt with Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument. I have seen far too many evolutionists (both Christians and Non-Christians) attack straw men of Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument. Most have simply dismissed it as "god of the gaps". I always believed that Behe's LOGIC was sound. That IF the biological factors claimed to be irreducibly complex really were irreducibly complex, then evolution could not hold (or at least a in which God didn't periodically intervene to help nature get over certain hurdles) and that intelligent design of the systems was the best explanation. To me, the only thing that could undercut Behe's argument is that if it were shown that these systems really could be plausibly explained through evolutionary mechanisms. Kenneth Miller does this in a spectaculor and easy to understand manner. The Eye, the blood clotting mechanism, cila, etc. really could have had predecessors for natural selection to act upon.
I do think Miller was a bit condescending in his tone in certain parts of the book. The way he phrased things when arguing against special creation seemed to carry a smarter-than-thou feel to it. That said, I don't think that effects the soundness of his case for Evolutionary Creationism, but it might turn off certain readers who disagree with him, thinking that he thinks they're stupid.
On pages 223-226, Miller talks about The Big Bang. I thought he was going to say how powerful this mainstream scientific evidence was for a transcendent Creator. Instead, he disappointed me by essentially saying that it doesn't resolve the issue of God's existence because for all we know "there is a tendency of matter to create itself from nothingness. If that's the case, the big bang merely marks the moment of that self-creation or the latest oscilaton in a grand series of cosmic cycles: a big bang, followed by a big crunch, followed by another big bang." This is just not accurate. The Big Bang certainly does get us to an absolute beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. The cosmic microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s disproved The Steady State Theory as any cosmology text will tell you. Practically no scientist today is an advocate of The Steady State model for this reason. As for the ocsillating theory, this is plagued by three major issues. For (1), no one has yet been able to produce a mechanism that would cause a universe that collapsed after a period of expansion to begin expanding again. (2) The amount of entropy would be carried over into each new period of ocillation. This means that each round of oscilation will have less and less energy than the oscillations that came before it. Therefore, if this expanding and contracting series were going on from an eternity past, the universe would have run out of usable energy an infinite amount of time ago. Hence, there must be an absolute beginning in which the universe' energy is 100% usable. (3) The Oscilating Universe model runs into the problem of an infinite regression.
The Steady State Model and The Oscilating Models were ways scientists tried to get out of the conclusion that the universe was created by a transcendent Creator. Since these theories were universally abandoned by cosmologists, they have tried other approaches, which I address in my book "The Case For The One True God" and in my blog posts on the Cerebral Faith website.
With that said, Miller was favorable to The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, even if he fails to appreciate the theological implications of The Big Bang.
Later in the same chapter, Miller discusses the relation of God with chance and randomness. Here, I really think his argument was rather weak. This is an area in which the view known as Molinism can be applied to solve the problem. God knew what nature WOULD stochastically do in any given circumstance, and He acted on this knowledge to actualize a world in which evolutionary history unfolded the way that He wanted it to. This isn't to say that I disagreed with what Miller said, it's just that his point could have been made a little stronger if he had employed Molinism, because Molinism shows how "chance" and libertarian free will can be fully compatible with the meticulous control of God. Not explaining HOW God could control "chance" events and free will choices leaves the uninformed reader to appeal to mystery when an appeal to mystery is not needed.
But I agree that "Evolution answers the question of chance and purpose in exactly the same way that history answers questions about the course of human events. To a biologist, evolution is subject to unpredictability just like human history. Evolution it's outcome has no obvious purpose or single goal just like human history. Like Evolution seem to occur without Divine guidance no one seems to think that a religious person engaged in the study of history must find a way that God rigged human events in order to cause the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, or the Holocaust. Yet curiously, that is exactly what many expect of a religious person engaged in a study of Natural History -- they want to know how God could have ensured the success of mammals rise of flowering plants and most especially, the ascent of man."
I agree. But Molinism here would provide a plausible explanation of how He rigged it. The comparison between what appears to be chance events in human history and what appears to be chance events in evolutionary history is a helpful comparison. Molinist or not, all Christians believe that God providentially organizes events that, from a human perspective, appear to be accidental. If the Christian accepts that this is the case in human history, he should have no problem accepting that this could be the case in evolutionary history. Hence, the "randomness" of evolution is not at all incompatible with the doctrine that God created us ON purpose and FOR a purpose.
Overall, this is a pretty good book, but Miller's treatment of the theological and philosophical side of the issue, I found somewhat lacking. He left the interaction between God and randomness ultimately an appeal to mystery and he BARELY touched upon how to see the book of Genesis in light of mainstream science, how Genesis 1-3 and evolution could be compatible. Essentially what he said can be boiled town to "Be open to alternative interpretations". I would recommend that one read this book and suppliment it with John Walton's "The Lost World Of Genesis One" and "The Lost World Of Adam and Eve", and works by Tremper Longman III.
In any case, I admire Kenneth's Miller strong zeal for both science and God, and despite this book's flaws, it has many strengths to it. I would recommend those studying the creation/evolution debate not neglect this work.
Read
July 25, 2011I have read many wonderful books on evolution and this is, by far, the poorest of the lot, for a multitude of reasons: 1) He does not explain evolution itself well. He takes shortcuts in explanations and doesn't expound on many concepts properly. He does not take the time, as it were, to ask his audience if they understand what he's saying. 2) He never does accomplish the aim of his book. He finds no common ground to speak of. The bridge he attempts to build never even gets off the ground. 3) He is positively antagonistic against creationists, and the praise from some of them is quite odd in this regard. 4) He never explains properly why he believes in God. He spends exactly two sentences trying to say why, but come on, two sentences is not good enough! 5) After completing the reading of the book, I revisited some points to clarify some things. Turns out, he contradicts himself on a great many points, most notably Free Will. He wants it both ways. He can't have it both ways. 6) He dismissed offhand certain positions, such as Deism, as ludicrous, with weak arguments that don't hold muster. 7) He is arrogant. In summary, despite the fact that I too believe in God and know in evolution, I find this book to be poorly written, and though I learned much about finer points such as the age of the earth, I did not learn much in the broader sense, having been completely crowded by his palpable anger. On the bright side, this makes me want to pick up Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain," which addresses my issues with this book, namely that the author had preconceived notions that he retrofit to square everything way for himself nicely, which he doesn't successfully do at all for me.
May 19, 2008
This book is not my usual genre so I was surprised to find the continued interest I had in completing it. In a community of logic based, rabid atheists (the intellectual scientist community), Kenneth Miller has managed to keep his faith and actually feels his study of Biology shows proof that God does indeed exist. The first half of the book is an amazing commentary, understandable to anyone with a High School knowledge of the sciences, on evolution, earth dating methods and components of matter, light etc. I learned an immense amount and enjoyed the weaving of humor and personal stories in his narrative. In the first four chapters he attempts to enlighten "strict creationists" of the fallacy in their belief. He, in my opinion, proves that evolution is indeed the process that brought us and all our living counterparts into existence today and then goes on to say that it is through this process that we can truly glorify at the magnificence and goodness of God. While no cold hard proof exists (nor will it or should it ever) we see that faith is still absolutely necessary. As Kenneth Miller puts it, "This does not mean...that God cannot or does not act in the world. It simply means that He is wise enough to act in ways that preserve our own freedom, allowing us to reap the rewards and consequences of our own free will." If you have an interest in science and even in the workings of our Heavenly Father then you will enjoy this book! It's opened up a whole new window for me and has peaked my interest again for the kind of learning I took so for granted in college and High School!
July 10, 2008
I was pretty impressed with this book. It was well written and I think he made his point very clear. I appreciate that this scientist is so willing to share his views on both science and religion and I love how he explains how science has strengthened his faith because that's how I feel also. For those of you who wonder how a person can believe in God and science and if evolution is trying to replace God, this one is great for you.
December 23, 2007
I believe he did not provide much evidence of how evolution and 'orthodox christianity' as he calls it can be merged. He clearly states that he believes in both evolution and the trinity. There isn't too much out there on this subject and I would be interested in reading something like this written by somebody else.
April 18, 2009
Wow. What a fun book to read-- lots to think about. I may not agree with every one of Miller's opinions, but he eloquently presents some very intriguing ideas and very often nails the truth right on the head. I admire Miller as a scientist, a Christian, a writer, and a person honest and bold enough to say what needs to be said.
August 10, 2008
Another book that with style and grace and reason, addresses the issues between the theory of evolution and Christian faith. Well done, without insulting either side.
February 10, 2013
Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, has made a name for himself in communities that are deeply concerned with the intersection of religion and science, both on the atheist/skeptical side and the religious side. He successfully manages to irritate both camps because he says that supporting evolution and deistic belief are not necessarily contradictory. (Miller is a Catholic.) This shouldn’t be too controversial of a statement for someone who has thought about the issue for more than a few minutes, but it still seems to disconcert people.
“Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” works in some ways, but it is not what it is advertised to be. Judging from the title alone, you might guess that it involves a lot of digging through Darwin’s papers for his (non)religious inclinations, and to be fair we do get a very small amount of this. It will probably come as no surprise that Darwin was at different times throughout his life more conflicted and sometimes less conflicted about the existence of a Christian God, or even the God of deism. Earlier in his career, he was very convinced by the arguments of renowned eighteenth-century English scientist William Paley’s watchmaker analogy set forth in his “Natural Theology,” but seemed to become more skeptical as the publication of “Origin of Species” approached, and certainly toward the end of his life.
First, the part of the book that I wasn’t expecting: approximately the first two-thirds of this book is dedicated to demolishing creationist “science” (not really science at all), and particularly youth earth creationism. I realize the continuing need for popularizing science education, but I was more interested in the “Finding Darwin’s God” angle than a re-hashing of basic high school biology and chemistry which we all *supposed* to have learned. Even though this part of the book was a slog, he was extraordinarily thorough. He shows how a literal interpretation of Genesis no longer makes any sense considering what we know about morphology, radioactive dating, and the fossil record. He also equips someone who might be less familiar with pro-evolution arguments with examples, including the biochemical details of the blood clotting cascade and the development of the eukaryotic cilium. There is also a wonderful part of the book that explains how Gould’s punctuated equilibrium only exists as a different-looking phenomenon when you use shortened geological time scales, and that when you re-elongate these scales, you get the evolutionary tree of common descent that would have been more recognizable to Darwin himself. These couple of hundred pages were largely designed to arm the non-biologist with technical arguments to combat creationist nonsense, and they do a fine job.
The last two chapters are where Miller finally starts to explore the possible arguments for God. None of his arguments are convincing. He even says a couple of things that are embarrassing for a scientist of his caliber, like when he wanders into the field of cosmology: “…when one makes a run backwards in time to the moment before the big bang, one must imagine inconceivable amounts of mass and energy concentrated at a single point in space” (p. 225). Except that even talking about “before the big bang” makes no sense, since that very event is what created space and time as we know it. There was no time before the big bang that we know of. It’s like talking about cakes before the time of baking. It seems that he might be trying to raise the question of what allowed the big bang to occur. A great question, and we have the greatest minds in science working on it. The current answer? We don’t know.
A bit later, Miller delves into the miraculous: “What can science say about a miracle? Nothing. By definition, the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur. A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense – there is the matter of Jesus’s Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense” (p. 239). This truly is a disappointing argument from someone who just spent two-hundred pages arguing against creationism because it *doesn’t make scientific sense*. One of the points of science is to try to build heuristic models that explain the universe around us, or some aspect of that universe, that account for the most observable data. We must either reject or be agnostic about those phenomena which cannot be assimilated into these models.
Miller sometimes waxes philosophical, with about as much success. On God’s eternality: “This means that God, who always has been and always will be, transcends time and therefore is the master of it” (p. 242). I realize this is a stock-in-trade argument from classical Christian theology, but it is fundamentally flawed: something cannot exist outside of time because time is a predicate of existence. To exist means to have *come into existence*. The popular formulation of this argument is when a theist asks an atheist “What caused the big bang?” and the atheist responds “What caused God?” If you’re operating under the assumption that everything needs a cause, as classical Christian theology does, saying that God is an exception to your own rule isn’t going to work. It’s a logical fallacy called special pleading.
So, why does Kenneth Miller believe in God? One reason is his acceptance of the God of the Gaps arguments; he seems to be perplexed by the fact that we don’t have all of cosmology explained away. The second is his peculiar interpretation of quantum mechanics. He thinks that the random events of quantum mechanics and the simultaneous orderliness of the universe have something to with a God, though he never comes out and explicitly states it, and never clarifies how the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics would provide evidence for God.
What kind of God does Miller believe in? In the closing lines of the book, he quotes Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved” (p. 292). This is awe-filled Darwin at his most wondrous. However, even when Darwin indulged these sentiments, this is clearly the God of deism: a world set into motion by a distant, non-personal God who created natural laws and then let happen what may. It doesn’t at all comport with the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church (the virgin birth, the assumption, et cetera) in which Miller claims to believe.
Darwin’s God wasn’t the God of miracles, and therefore isn’t Miller’s God. He was the God of reverence for the mysteries of the universe, which have been slowly decreasing in number since the rise of modern science. This number will never reach zero; there will always be something new to learn, and science will never disappear. But looking for God in the unexplained nooks and crannies of science leaves a smaller and smaller place for Him/Her/It with each passing year, and this seems to be a theological approach in danger of having God slip through its very fingers.
“Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” works in some ways, but it is not what it is advertised to be. Judging from the title alone, you might guess that it involves a lot of digging through Darwin’s papers for his (non)religious inclinations, and to be fair we do get a very small amount of this. It will probably come as no surprise that Darwin was at different times throughout his life more conflicted and sometimes less conflicted about the existence of a Christian God, or even the God of deism. Earlier in his career, he was very convinced by the arguments of renowned eighteenth-century English scientist William Paley’s watchmaker analogy set forth in his “Natural Theology,” but seemed to become more skeptical as the publication of “Origin of Species” approached, and certainly toward the end of his life.
First, the part of the book that I wasn’t expecting: approximately the first two-thirds of this book is dedicated to demolishing creationist “science” (not really science at all), and particularly youth earth creationism. I realize the continuing need for popularizing science education, but I was more interested in the “Finding Darwin’s God” angle than a re-hashing of basic high school biology and chemistry which we all *supposed* to have learned. Even though this part of the book was a slog, he was extraordinarily thorough. He shows how a literal interpretation of Genesis no longer makes any sense considering what we know about morphology, radioactive dating, and the fossil record. He also equips someone who might be less familiar with pro-evolution arguments with examples, including the biochemical details of the blood clotting cascade and the development of the eukaryotic cilium. There is also a wonderful part of the book that explains how Gould’s punctuated equilibrium only exists as a different-looking phenomenon when you use shortened geological time scales, and that when you re-elongate these scales, you get the evolutionary tree of common descent that would have been more recognizable to Darwin himself. These couple of hundred pages were largely designed to arm the non-biologist with technical arguments to combat creationist nonsense, and they do a fine job.
The last two chapters are where Miller finally starts to explore the possible arguments for God. None of his arguments are convincing. He even says a couple of things that are embarrassing for a scientist of his caliber, like when he wanders into the field of cosmology: “…when one makes a run backwards in time to the moment before the big bang, one must imagine inconceivable amounts of mass and energy concentrated at a single point in space” (p. 225). Except that even talking about “before the big bang” makes no sense, since that very event is what created space and time as we know it. There was no time before the big bang that we know of. It’s like talking about cakes before the time of baking. It seems that he might be trying to raise the question of what allowed the big bang to occur. A great question, and we have the greatest minds in science working on it. The current answer? We don’t know.
A bit later, Miller delves into the miraculous: “What can science say about a miracle? Nothing. By definition, the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur. A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense – there is the matter of Jesus’s Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense” (p. 239). This truly is a disappointing argument from someone who just spent two-hundred pages arguing against creationism because it *doesn’t make scientific sense*. One of the points of science is to try to build heuristic models that explain the universe around us, or some aspect of that universe, that account for the most observable data. We must either reject or be agnostic about those phenomena which cannot be assimilated into these models.
Miller sometimes waxes philosophical, with about as much success. On God’s eternality: “This means that God, who always has been and always will be, transcends time and therefore is the master of it” (p. 242). I realize this is a stock-in-trade argument from classical Christian theology, but it is fundamentally flawed: something cannot exist outside of time because time is a predicate of existence. To exist means to have *come into existence*. The popular formulation of this argument is when a theist asks an atheist “What caused the big bang?” and the atheist responds “What caused God?” If you’re operating under the assumption that everything needs a cause, as classical Christian theology does, saying that God is an exception to your own rule isn’t going to work. It’s a logical fallacy called special pleading.
So, why does Kenneth Miller believe in God? One reason is his acceptance of the God of the Gaps arguments; he seems to be perplexed by the fact that we don’t have all of cosmology explained away. The second is his peculiar interpretation of quantum mechanics. He thinks that the random events of quantum mechanics and the simultaneous orderliness of the universe have something to with a God, though he never comes out and explicitly states it, and never clarifies how the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics would provide evidence for God.
What kind of God does Miller believe in? In the closing lines of the book, he quotes Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved” (p. 292). This is awe-filled Darwin at his most wondrous. However, even when Darwin indulged these sentiments, this is clearly the God of deism: a world set into motion by a distant, non-personal God who created natural laws and then let happen what may. It doesn’t at all comport with the fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church (the virgin birth, the assumption, et cetera) in which Miller claims to believe.
Darwin’s God wasn’t the God of miracles, and therefore isn’t Miller’s God. He was the God of reverence for the mysteries of the universe, which have been slowly decreasing in number since the rise of modern science. This number will never reach zero; there will always be something new to learn, and science will never disappear. But looking for God in the unexplained nooks and crannies of science leaves a smaller and smaller place for Him/Her/It with each passing year, and this seems to be a theological approach in danger of having God slip through its very fingers.
January 19, 2025
'Finding Darwin's God', published back in the late 1990s by then Brown University cell and molecular biologist (now Emeritus) Kenneth R. Miller was an interesting read. He makes a very strong case for the truth of evolution as recognized by virtually the entire scientific world. He also directly refutes the various 'theories' that had been advanced to that date (Creationism, Intelligent Design (aka ID), Young Earth, etc.) that purported to undermine the basis of evolutionary science. Miller provides a thorough and robust analysis of the history and development of the theory of evolution, a corpus of evidence that has simply overwhelmed the proponents of the aforementioned ideas. Interestingly, Miller was a key witness in the 2005 Pennsylvania trial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...) which after weeks of testimony from both sides, the court concluded ID to be 'not science'. I asked ChatGPT (yes, I did) if there had been any 'new advances' in the 25 years since this book was published that might either undermine the core tenets of evolution or advance the cause of ID. Not surprisingly, the response was no to both, in fact the opposite. Yet Miller also explains why the fear of evolutionary science remains so profound among many fundamentalist Christians and makes some very good points as to why those fears are not necessarily irrational. Miller, however is also a believing Catholic and has plenty to say in his book about where God does (or could) operate in our world, areas beyond the ken of science and he defends those ideas as admirably as he does the scientific case. Obviously however, none of those ideas are testable in any manner known to science and therefore mysteries about our ultimate origins will always remain for believers and non-believers alike. All the AI we can conjure up is not likely to change that truth.
December 15, 2017
Kenneth Miller is professor of biology at Brown University and a leading public figure in the relationship between science and faith, especially in public policy such as high school education.
I approached Finding Darwin's God with the hope that Professor Miller would spend the builk of the book arguing for a relationship between science and religion; however, the first half of the book is really more of a justification of science. Though Miller does an admirable job proving biological evolution to the reader, this seems to me to be a little like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Aside from a few fundamentalist Christians, I believe the debate is rather an unnecessary tangent to the more central purpose of the book, to show that evolution is not necessarily atheistic.
The second half of the book is much more memorable. Here Miller advances the thesis that the three monotheistic religions gain much by incorporating evolutionary biology into their concept of God. "The God of the Bible, even the God of Genesis, is a Deity fully consistent with what we know of the scientific reality of the modern world...The irony is that only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truely deserves." (p. 258)
Of particular interest is Professor Miller's discussion of free will (sorry Calvinists) and quantum mechanics. This extended argument against determinism (both divine and material) would make for another interesting book, but preferably one written by an expert in physics.
Worth the read, 3.5 stars but rounds down because the first half is flogging a dead horse.
I approached Finding Darwin's God with the hope that Professor Miller would spend the builk of the book arguing for a relationship between science and religion; however, the first half of the book is really more of a justification of science. Though Miller does an admirable job proving biological evolution to the reader, this seems to me to be a little like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Aside from a few fundamentalist Christians, I believe the debate is rather an unnecessary tangent to the more central purpose of the book, to show that evolution is not necessarily atheistic.
The second half of the book is much more memorable. Here Miller advances the thesis that the three monotheistic religions gain much by incorporating evolutionary biology into their concept of God. "The God of the Bible, even the God of Genesis, is a Deity fully consistent with what we know of the scientific reality of the modern world...The irony is that only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truely deserves." (p. 258)
Of particular interest is Professor Miller's discussion of free will (sorry Calvinists) and quantum mechanics. This extended argument against determinism (both divine and material) would make for another interesting book, but preferably one written by an expert in physics.
Worth the read, 3.5 stars but rounds down because the first half is flogging a dead horse.
October 20, 2017
I first read this book when it came out in 1999 and thought it quite good then. A recent facebook conversation with a "creationist" led me to reread it to see how well it holds up. In the intervening years I haven't really kept up to speed with the Evolution/Creationism debates, but I think Miller's book is still quite good.
The first part of the book deals with the various shades of creationism from "young-earth" on to more nuanced forms of "intelligent design" which claim that the so-called "irreducibly complex" machinery of biology demands a Designer. Miller blows holes in all of the creationist arguments and shows the theory and facts of evolution are on solid ground.
A lot of people have problems with the second more theological part of the book. I'm no philosopher so a lot of this is beyond me. But I think Miller does a good job of standing firmly between the unfounded Biblical literalism of the creationists and the overbearing atheism of some evolutionists (the "New Atheists"). In Miller's view evolution and the Western concept of God are not in conflict, or at least, they need not be in conflict.
The first part of the book deals with the various shades of creationism from "young-earth" on to more nuanced forms of "intelligent design" which claim that the so-called "irreducibly complex" machinery of biology demands a Designer. Miller blows holes in all of the creationist arguments and shows the theory and facts of evolution are on solid ground.
A lot of people have problems with the second more theological part of the book. I'm no philosopher so a lot of this is beyond me. But I think Miller does a good job of standing firmly between the unfounded Biblical literalism of the creationists and the overbearing atheism of some evolutionists (the "New Atheists"). In Miller's view evolution and the Western concept of God are not in conflict, or at least, they need not be in conflict.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews