What do you think?
Rate this book
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
A highly regarded scientist’s examination of the battle between evolution and intelligent design, and its implications for how science is practiced in America.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published June 12, 2008
45 people are currently reading
1995 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 99 reviews
July 1, 2009
This was a surprisingly fascinating book. I had previously thought of intelligent design advocates as being a bunch of ignorant louts and had no interest in reading about them. Little did I know that the architects of this conspiracy were highly intelligent designers themselves who devised a brilliant strategy to destroy the foundations of the scientific method. Only after reading this book do I realize that it's very important for the defenders of science to learn about this conspiracy and its clever strategies and take it seriously as the formidable enemy that it is, rather than dismissing it as a big joke.
One of the few quibbles I have with the author is his attempt to assimilate his Catholic faith with his support of materialistic science and evolution. He claims that these divergent beliefs don't necessarily conflict because they occupy entirely separate domains. For example, he says that the Bible doesn't really make any factual claims about the natural world, that it's more a book of morals or prescriptive behaviors. I completely disagree. It's obvious that the original authors of the books of the Bible were writing mythologies that attempted to make claims about the material history of the world, as well as to teach morals, and these claims are subject to verification. Miller seems to embrace a theological form of the anthropic theory of cosmology, whereas most advocates of this theory seem to feel that it doesn't require such props. I would highly recommend Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot and Leonard Susskind's Cosmic Landscape as good rebuttals to this small part of Miller's argument.
The other subject which I feel he simplified was the rise of relativism in academia and philosophical or sociological investigation of science as a cultural activity. He claims that science is the only area of intellectual inquiry that's not tainted by politics. I would disagree with that, although I also disagree with relativists on the other extreme who state that western science has the same degree of "truthfulness" as supernatural worldviews. Even though I don't believe in absolute truth or science independent of the scientist, I believe that our shared culture and our interactions with the material world provide a strong context within which we can judge the relative merit of competing ideas, and science is probably the most effective method we have of making these types of judgments. But that's a subject for another book.
Aside from these minor disagreements with the author, I have nothing but praise for this book and I wish high school teachers would include this book in their curriculums instead of stuff like Of Pandas and People.
One of the few quibbles I have with the author is his attempt to assimilate his Catholic faith with his support of materialistic science and evolution. He claims that these divergent beliefs don't necessarily conflict because they occupy entirely separate domains. For example, he says that the Bible doesn't really make any factual claims about the natural world, that it's more a book of morals or prescriptive behaviors. I completely disagree. It's obvious that the original authors of the books of the Bible were writing mythologies that attempted to make claims about the material history of the world, as well as to teach morals, and these claims are subject to verification. Miller seems to embrace a theological form of the anthropic theory of cosmology, whereas most advocates of this theory seem to feel that it doesn't require such props. I would highly recommend Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot and Leonard Susskind's Cosmic Landscape as good rebuttals to this small part of Miller's argument.
The other subject which I feel he simplified was the rise of relativism in academia and philosophical or sociological investigation of science as a cultural activity. He claims that science is the only area of intellectual inquiry that's not tainted by politics. I would disagree with that, although I also disagree with relativists on the other extreme who state that western science has the same degree of "truthfulness" as supernatural worldviews. Even though I don't believe in absolute truth or science independent of the scientist, I believe that our shared culture and our interactions with the material world provide a strong context within which we can judge the relative merit of competing ideas, and science is probably the most effective method we have of making these types of judgments. But that's a subject for another book.
Aside from these minor disagreements with the author, I have nothing but praise for this book and I wish high school teachers would include this book in their curriculums instead of stuff like Of Pandas and People.
March 23, 2022
Ken Miller’s book scores well on several points, but ends up weak on the task he set himself.
The first three-fifths of this book is a well presented rebuttal on the accusations the Intelligent Design (ID, née Creationism) community has made against the Darwinian theory of evolution. Miller is an excellent advocate: he presents the science at enough depth to convince and to satisfy the more technically-minded among his audience, without getting overly burdened by details. He reveals the astonishing story that ID’s attacks have indirectly strengthened the Darwinian argument by posing a series of supposedly fatal flaws, only to fail time and again: evolution answers those challenges with yet more fascinating and delightful molecular legerdemain.
But Miller didn’t set himself the task of merely defending Darwin’s science, but providing a plan of defense against the broader attack the ID movement is attempting: the overthrow of the Enlightenment’s materialist world view, the foundation of the scientific method.
At this point, confusion accumulates. Miller’s qualifications are incomparable for the discussion of science, but the larger attack is one of social philosophy, involving questions of theology and ontology, as well as the tactics of manipulation of the raw populace of the United States and western world. Miller does a better job than most could -- his citations of Augustine and Aquinas are spot-on -- but his argument lacks focus, clarity and, above all, force. After plowing through the final hundred pages, we are left to wonder how reassuring the assertion that “we are made of stardust” would be to Joe the plumber as he considers his vote for his school board. That is, of course, a cruel trivialization of those hundred pages, but it is hard to draw out anything more concrete.
Only a Theory is definitely a worthwhile read, both to understand the attacks on and defense of Darwin’s theory, and as an introduction to the ID movement’s frightening attempt to roll back hundreds of years of progress in thought and knowledge.
But Miller’s attempt at providing a strategic outline of a cultural defense or counterattack -- no.
P.S. Miller cites Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind while discussing the means and ends of culture wars. It occurred to me that Miller is, perhaps, like Bloom in an important way: Bloom’s vituperative lambaste was an overreaction to the worst excesses of academia’s embrace of postmodern cultural relativism. But the system didn’t fail: Bloom had underestimated the common sense of plain folk and had mistrusted the inherent appeal of the better choice. I hope and suspect that Miller is also reacting to his worst fears, and that the recent efforts of the ID movement will be its high tide mark -- its very successes have exposed it to too much glaring scrutiny. American’s have gone through paroxysms of reactionary extremism before, after all. The republic survived McCarthyism, and will survive Intelligent Design.
The first three-fifths of this book is a well presented rebuttal on the accusations the Intelligent Design (ID, née Creationism) community has made against the Darwinian theory of evolution. Miller is an excellent advocate: he presents the science at enough depth to convince and to satisfy the more technically-minded among his audience, without getting overly burdened by details. He reveals the astonishing story that ID’s attacks have indirectly strengthened the Darwinian argument by posing a series of supposedly fatal flaws, only to fail time and again: evolution answers those challenges with yet more fascinating and delightful molecular legerdemain.
But Miller didn’t set himself the task of merely defending Darwin’s science, but providing a plan of defense against the broader attack the ID movement is attempting: the overthrow of the Enlightenment’s materialist world view, the foundation of the scientific method.
At this point, confusion accumulates. Miller’s qualifications are incomparable for the discussion of science, but the larger attack is one of social philosophy, involving questions of theology and ontology, as well as the tactics of manipulation of the raw populace of the United States and western world. Miller does a better job than most could -- his citations of Augustine and Aquinas are spot-on -- but his argument lacks focus, clarity and, above all, force. After plowing through the final hundred pages, we are left to wonder how reassuring the assertion that “we are made of stardust” would be to Joe the plumber as he considers his vote for his school board. That is, of course, a cruel trivialization of those hundred pages, but it is hard to draw out anything more concrete.
Only a Theory is definitely a worthwhile read, both to understand the attacks on and defense of Darwin’s theory, and as an introduction to the ID movement’s frightening attempt to roll back hundreds of years of progress in thought and knowledge.
But Miller’s attempt at providing a strategic outline of a cultural defense or counterattack -- no.
P.S. Miller cites Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind while discussing the means and ends of culture wars. It occurred to me that Miller is, perhaps, like Bloom in an important way: Bloom’s vituperative lambaste was an overreaction to the worst excesses of academia’s embrace of postmodern cultural relativism. But the system didn’t fail: Bloom had underestimated the common sense of plain folk and had mistrusted the inherent appeal of the better choice. I hope and suspect that Miller is also reacting to his worst fears, and that the recent efforts of the ID movement will be its high tide mark -- its very successes have exposed it to too much glaring scrutiny. American’s have gone through paroxysms of reactionary extremism before, after all. The republic survived McCarthyism, and will survive Intelligent Design.
January 13, 2009
When I picked this up in a bookstore it was for my sister-in-law, a highly-qualified science teacher, but my fiancée said, no, that looks boring, and selected a different book for her, one with an animal sharing the book’s focus. So I bought it for myself instead. In high school I barely survived biology, and in consequence chemistry and physics were both spared me (and vice versa). In college, scarred by my failure in all things math and science oriented, I snuck by the minimal science requirements with ecology and geology. The passing grade in the latter being a profoundly hard-earned C—it served me right, the sum total of my reasoning in electing geology was “How hard can rocks be?” (I crammed for the final and while I recall the answer choices, the answer again eludes me—was it a) Duh; b) Doh; c) Duh and Doh; d) all of the above?)
My sorry background aside, I’ve long suspected that the world of science is right and the generalized American public opinion wrong in the great anti-evolution debate but I’ve not known why. Now I do, thanks to Kenneth Miller’s passionately reasoned and finely argued book. The book’s title captures part of the dilemma, evolution is only a theory. But there are theories, like scientific ones, that have a mammoth array of documented and analyzed evidence behind them and there are other theories that don’t, say that Elvis isn’t really dead but kidnapped by aliens who have him on a healthy diet and playing 1950s rock ‘n’ roll again in preparation for his imminent return. This misunderestimating of the meaning of theory has led some to suggest that neither science nor learning would be harmed should we teach both “sides” in this theoretical dispute. Not only would there not be any harm, but fairness would be well served.
As Miller makes clear the science of evolution is not in dispute, not in reality or in theory. The dispute is between science and those who for reasons having to do with self-esteem (personal: I can’t be related, however distantly, to monkeys; or culturally, my religion sits too precariously on the peg of my belief to keep itself upright without governmental assistance) can’t bear the presumed contradictions contained in this scientific theory. So to humor these objecting monkeys we undermine science education. Intelligent Design (nee Creationism) is the opposing theory, the one that has no characteristics in common with scientific theory but bears a strong resemblance to particular narrow-minded and weak-souled religious faiths. (Just as many scientists are devoutly religious without fearing that the teachings of one upset the teachings of the other, so are most religions quite okay with evolution as not being an affront, let alone a contradiction, to theology.) Miller thoughtfully examines the arguments of promoters of Intelligent Design—what they identify as proof of the weakness of evolutionary theory and what they present as evidence of Intelligent Design. He patiently and respectfully exposes the lack of science in their position.
It’s been a wonderful public relations campaign the creationists have waged, but in the interests of education, science, constitutional principle, religion, and, yes, fairness, it is time to put an end to the special interest caterwauling for governmental protection for their pet peeve. Miller’s book should be required reading for every school board member in America before they are allowed to waste the public’s time, resources, and, potentially, our future on this Trojan horse.
My sorry background aside, I’ve long suspected that the world of science is right and the generalized American public opinion wrong in the great anti-evolution debate but I’ve not known why. Now I do, thanks to Kenneth Miller’s passionately reasoned and finely argued book. The book’s title captures part of the dilemma, evolution is only a theory. But there are theories, like scientific ones, that have a mammoth array of documented and analyzed evidence behind them and there are other theories that don’t, say that Elvis isn’t really dead but kidnapped by aliens who have him on a healthy diet and playing 1950s rock ‘n’ roll again in preparation for his imminent return. This misunderestimating of the meaning of theory has led some to suggest that neither science nor learning would be harmed should we teach both “sides” in this theoretical dispute. Not only would there not be any harm, but fairness would be well served.
As Miller makes clear the science of evolution is not in dispute, not in reality or in theory. The dispute is between science and those who for reasons having to do with self-esteem (personal: I can’t be related, however distantly, to monkeys; or culturally, my religion sits too precariously on the peg of my belief to keep itself upright without governmental assistance) can’t bear the presumed contradictions contained in this scientific theory. So to humor these objecting monkeys we undermine science education. Intelligent Design (nee Creationism) is the opposing theory, the one that has no characteristics in common with scientific theory but bears a strong resemblance to particular narrow-minded and weak-souled religious faiths. (Just as many scientists are devoutly religious without fearing that the teachings of one upset the teachings of the other, so are most religions quite okay with evolution as not being an affront, let alone a contradiction, to theology.) Miller thoughtfully examines the arguments of promoters of Intelligent Design—what they identify as proof of the weakness of evolutionary theory and what they present as evidence of Intelligent Design. He patiently and respectfully exposes the lack of science in their position.
It’s been a wonderful public relations campaign the creationists have waged, but in the interests of education, science, constitutional principle, religion, and, yes, fairness, it is time to put an end to the special interest caterwauling for governmental protection for their pet peeve. Miller’s book should be required reading for every school board member in America before they are allowed to waste the public’s time, resources, and, potentially, our future on this Trojan horse.
June 1, 2025
The focus of this book by Professor Kenneth R. Miller, from Brown University, is on the Dover, PA case in which he provided testimony. That case was in 2005 and in it Darwin's theory of evolution faced a challenge from the concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID). ID's supporters claimed that life cannot be explained only by natural processes. As Miller explains, he and the other defenders of evolution showed that ID was basically a reworking of "creationism" and an attempt to (once again) impose religious beliefs on science. Miller also expresses his strong concern that ID is part of a wider attack on scientific reason. As all branches of science show, our world functions according to rational principles which are ultimately knowable--without the need for any belief in the supernatural. Many people can't accept that.
The book was published in 2008 and, as I write this in 2022, it seems I have not heard much about the evolution/creationism battle in the last ten years or so--unless I have missed something. But recently we've seen increasing assaults on science and sheer denialism relating to the climate crisis and, especially in the last two years, to vaccinations and other public health measures. It's a chilling thought but it seems that millions of Americans would be only too happy to roll this country back into a pre-scientific dark age.
The book was published in 2008 and, as I write this in 2022, it seems I have not heard much about the evolution/creationism battle in the last ten years or so--unless I have missed something. But recently we've seen increasing assaults on science and sheer denialism relating to the climate crisis and, especially in the last two years, to vaccinations and other public health measures. It's a chilling thought but it seems that millions of Americans would be only too happy to roll this country back into a pre-scientific dark age.
January 12, 2012
"Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" is all we have come to expect from noted Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller in the course of his many public debates against creationists; a sterling blend of ample wit and elegant prose coupled with his passionate sincerity in defending genuine science's methodology and data from those intellectual Vandals seeking to replace it with their delusional notion of pseudoscientific mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design. Here, in this succinctly-worded, quite magnificent, book, Miller has rendered an elegantly stated, magisterial refutation not only of Intelligent Design's pathetic pretense of being genuine science, but of its ongoing - and regrettably still successful - effort to claim America's "scientific soul" as he has defined it, and thus, to pose a dire threat to American scientific and technological supremacy. Fanatical skeptics like Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers ("Fellows" and "Senior Fellows") Michael Behe, William Dembski, David Klinghoffer, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells, among others, will scoff at Ken Miller's assertions, and accuse him of being "possessed" or "enslaved" by his "atheistic, liberal Darwinist" agenda. However, unlike them, Miller has consistently staked out views recognizing that science and religion must remain separated - despite his own devoutly held Roman Catholic religious convictions - and indeed, his cogent remarks are rather quite persuasive, and, happily, harbor the glimmerings of some hope despite their dire alarmist nature. Without question "Only A Theory" ought to serve as a clarion call to those willing to be persuaded by Miller's arguments, because the emotional, intellectual and political stakes for America's future are quite high, and among these include the survival of a vibrant, American science as a rational enterprise totally devoid of supernatural considerations (For these reasons alone, "Only A Theory" demands a wide readership, extending well beyond the battle lines of contested school districts like Dover, Pennsylvania's to the very halls of Congress, even if there are many, in Washington, D. C., unlikely to listen to Miller's warning.). Not only evolutionary biology, but geology, chemistry, and physics too would be twisted beyond recognition by the Discovery Institute's zealous band of mendacious intellectual pornographers seeking a more expansive "definition" of science that allows "research" into supernatural phenomena; a nonsensical definition endorsed by Behe, having admitted under oath at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, that astrology could be accepted as science.
What is America's "scientific soul" and why its survival remains in jeopardy from Intelligent Design's ongoing, vigorous - or perhaps more accurately, fanatical - assault, are among the most important, most compelling, themes examined by Miller in his elegant, terse tome. As Miller eloquently notes in the opening chapter, his recognition of a "battle for America's scientific soul" is one he has discerned only recently, in the aftermath of recent legal battles against Intelligent Design and other creationist foes. And, regrettably, it is a battle that goes well beyond shaping the future course of American secondary school science education. Miller passionately believes that our "scientific soul" is exactly the very essence that makes us Americans; a healthy disdain for authority, but one which does respect pragmatism, and demands results, in short, the very cultural environment that has been embraced, and sustained by mainstream science for centuries. A cultural environment whose revolutionary nature arose in little more than a decade during the American Revolution, according to Miller's distinguished Brown University colleague, eminent American historian Gordon Wood, when Americans transformed their society from "one little different from the hierarchal societies of European monarchies to one that took up the truly radical notion that individuals were both the source of a government's legitimacy and its greatest hope for progress."
In many respects, not only is Intelligent Design an idea that is "un-American", since its very principles are antithetical to America's defining cultural values of practicality, pragmatism and disrespect of authority, but, in its key objective of "overthrowing methodological naturalism", Intelligent Design, argues Miller, is a far more serious and dangerous threat to mainstream science than traditional creationism, since it is a revolutionary assault against the very fabric of scientific methodology ("methodological naturalism", or rather, what is commonly recognized as the scientific method comprised of hypothesis generation and testing) employed by science for centuries, transforming science into an unrecognizable entity that is as rife with relativism as the leftist-leaning social sciences criticized by philosopher Allan Bloom in his landmark tome, "The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Impoverished America's Young and Failed Its Students". Indeed Miller observes astutely that Bloom's analysis was not a conservative-leaning attack on leftist Academia, but instead, one warning how a relativistic "openness" - an uncritical embrace of all ideas - was detrimental to the survival of rational thought on college and university campuses, and, not surprisingly, Bloom contended that the sciences were the only realm of Academia unaffected by the politics of openness. However, if Intelligent Design successfully gains further acceptance amongst a sympathetic American populace, then, Miller warns, American science would be susceptible too to the same political plagues affecting the arts, humanities and social sciences (Ironically the same plagues that have been the subjects of ample discourse, mostly hysterical ridicule, from leading Intelligent Design advocates like Philip Johnson, David Klinghoffer, and Ann Coulter.). This is a warning which should be heeded by anyone who reads or hears of Miller's message, since the very essence, the very future, of American science is at stake.
If Intelligent Design is "un-American" in both its tone and temperment, then why is it gaining wider acceptance among Americans? Miller concludes one of his early chapters noting how biologists have failed to persuade the public of "the imperfections of biological design", implying that such imperfections are not, in of themselves, "proof" of evolution; an observation which Intelligent Design advocates have been quite persuasive. Moreover, by emphasizing the existence of biological design to the general public so they can ask "How come?" and noting the other "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design advocates are winning the public relations battle and, so far, the battle for America's scientific soul.
"Only A Theory" should not be viewed only as a concise, well-reasoned polemic on behalf of rational thought, and America's scientific future. It is as I have noted earlier, an elegant refutation of the mendacious intellectual pornography that is Intelligent Design. However, instead of simply refuting it, Miller examines it, asking us to look into the possibility that Intelligent Design is credible science, and therefore, a viable, truly better, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity (In fairness to Miller, however, the very brevity of this book means that "Only A Theory" does not include ample discussion of issues ranging from understanding the tempo and mode of evolution, the relationship of sociobiology to contemporary theory, and the importance, if any, of neutral models of evolution; all of which have been cited by Intelligent Design advocates and creationists as solid "evidence" that evolutionary theory is an outmoded theory in "crisis", on an intellectual "death watch", awaiting its replacement by Intelligent Design. Of course, despite such delusional assertions, evolutionary theory remains a vigorous, unifying scientific theory of biology; a point Miller emphasizes in the book's conclusion.). Miller devotes much of Chapters Two and Three in reviewing the history of Intelligent Design, beginning with William Paley's work, and in explaining Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity and Dembski's "mathematical" notion of Complex Specified Information. In evoking once more Behe's favorite mechanical mousetrap analogue as an "example" of Irreducibly Complex, Miller offers his most concise, but extensive, explanation why the mousetrap isn't, offering instead, some sly, and humorous, analogues of exaptation at work (While Miller doesn't refer specifically to the term exaptation as such - one that has gained widespread currency since the publication of a classic early 1980s paper co-authored by paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba - anyone familiar with it should recognize the mousetrap as a mechanical analogue comparable to the evolution of feathers in theropod dinosaurs originally for thermoregulation, before assuming prominent roles in powered flight in avian dinosaurs and their closely related kin.). He follows up his elegant discussion of the mousetrap with one of a real biological exaptation, the evolution of a "poison pump" in some bacteria from the bacterial flagellum (Behe's real-life favorite example -which he asserts still - of Irreducible Complexity.).
If we were "Embracing Design" (Chapter Three), then how would Intelligent Design explain the history of Earth's biodiversity? Using as an elegant example, the evolutionary history of horses, Miller shows why Intelligent Design does a poor job of it, observing that an Intelligent Designer's only consistent pattern would be the constant replacement of "designed" species due to their extinctions (Unless, of course as Miller notes, that was indeed the "design" of the Intelligent Designer after all.). On the other hand, Miller notes how evolutionary theory explains the history of Earth's biodiversity in the succeeding two chapters, noting the so-called Cambrian "Explosion" (which, he reminds us, was instead a gradual diversification of marine metazoan taxa over the span of tens of millions of years) and human evolution. Moreover, he explains how evolutionary developmental biology (`evo devo") is yielding fascinating new insights from genomic data that confirm the robustness of Darwin's ideas on "descent with modification" at the molecular level; overwhelming data denying the implications of an "Intelligent Designer" "predicted" by William Dembski in his mathematically flawed conceptions of Complex Specified Information and his so-called "Law of Conservation of Information". And last, but not least, Miller explains why evolution is not a "random" process in "The World That Knew We Were Coming" (Chapter Seven), reminding us of the importance of convergence and contingency in influencing the history of life on Planet Earth.
Other books have emphasized the danger posed by Intelligent Design to America's scientific and technological future, most notably, Niles Eldredge's "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism", and Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters". However, none have been as eloquent or as extensive in pointing out this danger as Miller has through his compelling and persuasive reasoning. Few have devoted as much space as Miller's admirable effort in "Only A Theory" in taking seriously the "scientific" claims posed by Intelligent Design advocates, if only to demonstrate why these are not merely "bad" science - or rather mendacious intellectual pornography as I would prefer to describe them - but how they would "impoverish" the very nature of science if they were ever recognized as science. While Miller closes "Only A Theory" on a potentially optimistic note, relying on his personal anecdotal evidence drawn from giving lectures around the United States to demonstrate Americans' keen current interest in science - even if they object strongly to contemporary evolutionary theory - he recognizes that the ongoing battle for America's scientific soul will be long and arduous. Recent interest in so-called "Academic Freedom" bills promoted by the Discovery Institute in several state legislatures and the Texas State Board of Education's sympathy towards emphasizing the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories like contemporary evolutionary theory merely demonstrate just how difficult a struggle this battle shall be.
(Reposted from my 2008 Amazon review)
What is America's "scientific soul" and why its survival remains in jeopardy from Intelligent Design's ongoing, vigorous - or perhaps more accurately, fanatical - assault, are among the most important, most compelling, themes examined by Miller in his elegant, terse tome. As Miller eloquently notes in the opening chapter, his recognition of a "battle for America's scientific soul" is one he has discerned only recently, in the aftermath of recent legal battles against Intelligent Design and other creationist foes. And, regrettably, it is a battle that goes well beyond shaping the future course of American secondary school science education. Miller passionately believes that our "scientific soul" is exactly the very essence that makes us Americans; a healthy disdain for authority, but one which does respect pragmatism, and demands results, in short, the very cultural environment that has been embraced, and sustained by mainstream science for centuries. A cultural environment whose revolutionary nature arose in little more than a decade during the American Revolution, according to Miller's distinguished Brown University colleague, eminent American historian Gordon Wood, when Americans transformed their society from "one little different from the hierarchal societies of European monarchies to one that took up the truly radical notion that individuals were both the source of a government's legitimacy and its greatest hope for progress."
In many respects, not only is Intelligent Design an idea that is "un-American", since its very principles are antithetical to America's defining cultural values of practicality, pragmatism and disrespect of authority, but, in its key objective of "overthrowing methodological naturalism", Intelligent Design, argues Miller, is a far more serious and dangerous threat to mainstream science than traditional creationism, since it is a revolutionary assault against the very fabric of scientific methodology ("methodological naturalism", or rather, what is commonly recognized as the scientific method comprised of hypothesis generation and testing) employed by science for centuries, transforming science into an unrecognizable entity that is as rife with relativism as the leftist-leaning social sciences criticized by philosopher Allan Bloom in his landmark tome, "The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Impoverished America's Young and Failed Its Students". Indeed Miller observes astutely that Bloom's analysis was not a conservative-leaning attack on leftist Academia, but instead, one warning how a relativistic "openness" - an uncritical embrace of all ideas - was detrimental to the survival of rational thought on college and university campuses, and, not surprisingly, Bloom contended that the sciences were the only realm of Academia unaffected by the politics of openness. However, if Intelligent Design successfully gains further acceptance amongst a sympathetic American populace, then, Miller warns, American science would be susceptible too to the same political plagues affecting the arts, humanities and social sciences (Ironically the same plagues that have been the subjects of ample discourse, mostly hysterical ridicule, from leading Intelligent Design advocates like Philip Johnson, David Klinghoffer, and Ann Coulter.). This is a warning which should be heeded by anyone who reads or hears of Miller's message, since the very essence, the very future, of American science is at stake.
If Intelligent Design is "un-American" in both its tone and temperment, then why is it gaining wider acceptance among Americans? Miller concludes one of his early chapters noting how biologists have failed to persuade the public of "the imperfections of biological design", implying that such imperfections are not, in of themselves, "proof" of evolution; an observation which Intelligent Design advocates have been quite persuasive. Moreover, by emphasizing the existence of biological design to the general public so they can ask "How come?" and noting the other "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design advocates are winning the public relations battle and, so far, the battle for America's scientific soul.
"Only A Theory" should not be viewed only as a concise, well-reasoned polemic on behalf of rational thought, and America's scientific future. It is as I have noted earlier, an elegant refutation of the mendacious intellectual pornography that is Intelligent Design. However, instead of simply refuting it, Miller examines it, asking us to look into the possibility that Intelligent Design is credible science, and therefore, a viable, truly better, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity (In fairness to Miller, however, the very brevity of this book means that "Only A Theory" does not include ample discussion of issues ranging from understanding the tempo and mode of evolution, the relationship of sociobiology to contemporary theory, and the importance, if any, of neutral models of evolution; all of which have been cited by Intelligent Design advocates and creationists as solid "evidence" that evolutionary theory is an outmoded theory in "crisis", on an intellectual "death watch", awaiting its replacement by Intelligent Design. Of course, despite such delusional assertions, evolutionary theory remains a vigorous, unifying scientific theory of biology; a point Miller emphasizes in the book's conclusion.). Miller devotes much of Chapters Two and Three in reviewing the history of Intelligent Design, beginning with William Paley's work, and in explaining Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity and Dembski's "mathematical" notion of Complex Specified Information. In evoking once more Behe's favorite mechanical mousetrap analogue as an "example" of Irreducibly Complex, Miller offers his most concise, but extensive, explanation why the mousetrap isn't, offering instead, some sly, and humorous, analogues of exaptation at work (While Miller doesn't refer specifically to the term exaptation as such - one that has gained widespread currency since the publication of a classic early 1980s paper co-authored by paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba - anyone familiar with it should recognize the mousetrap as a mechanical analogue comparable to the evolution of feathers in theropod dinosaurs originally for thermoregulation, before assuming prominent roles in powered flight in avian dinosaurs and their closely related kin.). He follows up his elegant discussion of the mousetrap with one of a real biological exaptation, the evolution of a "poison pump" in some bacteria from the bacterial flagellum (Behe's real-life favorite example -which he asserts still - of Irreducible Complexity.).
If we were "Embracing Design" (Chapter Three), then how would Intelligent Design explain the history of Earth's biodiversity? Using as an elegant example, the evolutionary history of horses, Miller shows why Intelligent Design does a poor job of it, observing that an Intelligent Designer's only consistent pattern would be the constant replacement of "designed" species due to their extinctions (Unless, of course as Miller notes, that was indeed the "design" of the Intelligent Designer after all.). On the other hand, Miller notes how evolutionary theory explains the history of Earth's biodiversity in the succeeding two chapters, noting the so-called Cambrian "Explosion" (which, he reminds us, was instead a gradual diversification of marine metazoan taxa over the span of tens of millions of years) and human evolution. Moreover, he explains how evolutionary developmental biology (`evo devo") is yielding fascinating new insights from genomic data that confirm the robustness of Darwin's ideas on "descent with modification" at the molecular level; overwhelming data denying the implications of an "Intelligent Designer" "predicted" by William Dembski in his mathematically flawed conceptions of Complex Specified Information and his so-called "Law of Conservation of Information". And last, but not least, Miller explains why evolution is not a "random" process in "The World That Knew We Were Coming" (Chapter Seven), reminding us of the importance of convergence and contingency in influencing the history of life on Planet Earth.
Other books have emphasized the danger posed by Intelligent Design to America's scientific and technological future, most notably, Niles Eldredge's "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism", and Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters". However, none have been as eloquent or as extensive in pointing out this danger as Miller has through his compelling and persuasive reasoning. Few have devoted as much space as Miller's admirable effort in "Only A Theory" in taking seriously the "scientific" claims posed by Intelligent Design advocates, if only to demonstrate why these are not merely "bad" science - or rather mendacious intellectual pornography as I would prefer to describe them - but how they would "impoverish" the very nature of science if they were ever recognized as science. While Miller closes "Only A Theory" on a potentially optimistic note, relying on his personal anecdotal evidence drawn from giving lectures around the United States to demonstrate Americans' keen current interest in science - even if they object strongly to contemporary evolutionary theory - he recognizes that the ongoing battle for America's scientific soul will be long and arduous. Recent interest in so-called "Academic Freedom" bills promoted by the Discovery Institute in several state legislatures and the Texas State Board of Education's sympathy towards emphasizing the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories like contemporary evolutionary theory merely demonstrate just how difficult a struggle this battle shall be.
(Reposted from my 2008 Amazon review)
September 10, 2008
A well written and researched examination of Intelligent Design (ID), its propositions, proponents and ultimate aims. The book shines light on ID for what it is, an anti-intellectual attack by the religious right on not just Darwinism, but the underlying foundations of science itself.
As a biologist and author of a high school text book on the topic Ken Miller has the credentials to back up his claims. He's also had direct interaction with the ID peddlers having played a key role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case.
My only criticism stems from Chapter 6, in which the author attempts to reconcile his Christian beliefs with his scientific materialism. It’s clear what he’s attempting to accomplish with this chapter – he’d like to reassure those who see science as a threat to their beliefs, that the two subjects are mutually compatible. If only this were true. It’s impossible to reconcile the critical thinking he brings to bear on ID with his religious outlook. The chapter fairly screams “cognitive dissonance”.
With that said, the book is well worth reading, particularly by those who hold differing viewpoints regarding natural selection than the author (about 50% of the US population … ugh) or those wondering why scientists and teachers are so concerned about “teaching the controversy”.
As a biologist and author of a high school text book on the topic Ken Miller has the credentials to back up his claims. He's also had direct interaction with the ID peddlers having played a key role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case.
My only criticism stems from Chapter 6, in which the author attempts to reconcile his Christian beliefs with his scientific materialism. It’s clear what he’s attempting to accomplish with this chapter – he’d like to reassure those who see science as a threat to their beliefs, that the two subjects are mutually compatible. If only this were true. It’s impossible to reconcile the critical thinking he brings to bear on ID with his religious outlook. The chapter fairly screams “cognitive dissonance”.
With that said, the book is well worth reading, particularly by those who hold differing viewpoints regarding natural selection than the author (about 50% of the US population … ugh) or those wondering why scientists and teachers are so concerned about “teaching the controversy”.
July 1, 2008
Ken Miller is a man of many talents. Professor of biology and the co-author of high school biology textbooks used by millions of American students, he was also one of the leading scientific experts who testified for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller intelligent design case. Miller, a talented teacher and populizer of science, is the type of expert lawyers dream about, able to explain complicated and technical subjects in a clear and conversational tone. Miller also happens to be a devout and practicing Christian.
Miller thus seems uniquely qualified to write about the battle over evolution. And he does so in Only A Theory, which is a lucid and thought provoking examination of the conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Miller avoids much of the bitterness and insults which have marked the writings of some partisans on both sides of this issue, from Richard Dawkins to the Discovery Institute. Instead, Miller is reasoned and reasonable. But that does not mean that he lacks a point of view. He has one, and he expresses it forcefully and persuasively, and even condemns those who take the position that all ideas have equal merit.
Miller examines intelligent design, looking at its shortcomings and mistakes and explaining why it isn't science. In part, he does this by taking its tenets seriously and then looking at the logical (or illogical) implications of those ideas. ID holds that "macroevolutionary events...are actually instances of design." That is, evolution cannot produce the type of large scale genetic or biochemical changes that result in the creation of a new species. Miller demonstrates the falsity of this idea by turning to the fossil record to illustrate the implications of this idea. The fossil record shows at least 36 distinct species of horse-like animals, in a continuous series, leading step by step to the modern horse. If ID is to be believed, the creator designed each new species after the one before it became extinct, making each new species just a little different from both the one before it, and the one after it. Hence, while the creator's handiwork created the appearance of evolution, this is, in reality, just an illusion. How and why the designer would do this are questions left unaddressed and unresolved by ID.
Miller provides the logical conclusion: "The inescapable conclusion that comes from honestly applying the idea of design to the fossil record is that the great intelligience behind ID is a serial creator. He brings into being new species again and again, inexplicably fashioning each one so that it bears a striking resemblance to a species just lost to extinction." This would make the creator "a fitful and impulsive cretor, building and destroying in countless ways that curiously resemble a supposedly nonexistent evolutionary process."
Equally devastating to ID is Miller's refutation of the contention that evolution cannot create new genetic information. Miller provides numerous examples of evolution doing just this. A particularly telling one is the bacteria that evolved an enzyme with the ability to digest nylon, a substance that had been previously unknown to any bacteria, meaning there was no way the bacteria could have had in its pre-existing genome any information about how to build an enzyme to turn nylon into food. Miller explains: "Theoretical studies that model evolution show how information for new genes is produces by the process of selection, replication, and mutation...and provide one example after another of how evolution solves the 'problem' of information by using the demands of the enviroment to generate it....The 'design' of new genes does occur, but the designer is the process of evolution itself."
Miller also deals with the shopworn ID concept of irreducible complexity, which has been shown to be wrong over and over again. It seems like every time one of the ID proponents comes up with something allegedly too complex for evolution to produce in small increments, from the eye, to the bacterial flagellum to the human blood clotting cascade, real scientists show how it did evolve step by step. Hence, while ID attempts to prove that evolution cannot produce complex biochemical systems by arguing that systems made up of multiple parts cannot function until all their parts are assembled, Miller correctly notes that this assertion "is simply not true -- not even for the favorite examples of the ID supporters themselves, including the blood-clotting machinery and the bacterial flagellum...if science took the asertions of ID seriously, it would have closed off whole lines of research that have actually turned out to be productive."
Miller shows that while ID attempts to poke holes in evolution, it fails to offer any coherent explanation of its own that holds scientific water. ID is "compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions," and "as such, it's a literal dead end." Adherents of ID are fond of saying that evolution is "only a theory," insinuating that theory means just a hunch or a guess, and ignoring that in science it means a lot more than that. However, while evolution may be "only a theory" Miller shows that ID isn't even a theory.
Miller sets forth his own belief that science and religion are not in conflict, and explains how he can be both a scientist who rejects ID as a scientific idea and a Christian who believes that God created the universe and everything in it. He concludes that evolution "really does tell us something deep and profound about the world in which we live," and explains:
"As it turns out, there really is a design to life, but it's not the clumsy, interventionist one in which life is an artificial injection into nature, a contradiction of its physical laws. Rather, it is a design in which life emerges from the laws of the universe around us. That conclusion is unavoidable, robust, and scientific. The elegent universe is a universe of life. And the name of the grand design of life is evolution."
Finally, Miller turns to the real threat posed by the proponents of ID, warning that they seek a lot more than just having ID taught side by side with evolution in the public schools. What they seek is nothing less than a redefinition of science that would allow for supernatural causation, and thereby demolish the very underpinnings of science itself. Miller writes that the antievolution movement is "truly radical in its character, aimed at using political power to distort the scientific marketplace to achieve a predetermined end -- the endorsement of a particular religious view of nature."
Miller goes on to explain that the true danger of ID "stems from the tactics and techniques the ID movement has chosen to employ in its assault on science....The core strategy of the movement is to dethrone evolution by undermining any notion that science is a genuine pathway to help us grasp the true nature of existence. Its rhetoric has centered on 'fairness,' emphasizing that evolution is just a theory, and therefore the 'theory' of design has just as much right to a place in classroom, curriculum, and textbook." As Miller recognizes, once this happens, "at a stroke, the ID strategy transforms science. The discipline of Einstein, Galileo, Darwin and Mendel is no longer driven by the unforgiving test of nature, but by the relative values of our times and of people who attempt to dominate and dictate cultural norms. Evolution's primary flaw is not that it is wrong, but that it can be used by groups whose cultural norms and values some believe should be rejected."
And therein lies the heart of the matter. ID knows it can't to win the scientific war if it plays by the rules of science. But those who believe in ID don't want to win the scientific war. They want to win the cultural war. They truly believe that science and evolution are godless, materialistic and amoral, and must be destroyed. Miller says that there can be no mistaking the true target in ID's crosshairs: the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment which gave rise to science as we know it is ID's true enemy.
To those who ask if Miller isn't being too extreme in this view, he offers the words of William Demski, one of the leading lights of the movement, who admits that the implications of ID are "radical in the true sense of this much overused word." As Demski puts it: "The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out...because they are bankrupt."
To Miller, this really is a battle for the soul of America. In his view, evolution is more than just a better story, with the advantage of being true; it is a powerful and expanding theory which draws all of biology into a single science. Nonetheless, he has no doubt that the battle over it will continue for years.
At the end, Miller poses these provocative questions: Are we willing to allow science to work? Do we have the strength and the wisdom to allow science to discard the ideas that don't work, and to search for genuine truth about the natural world? He says that to do so requires faith in an objective reality in nature and faith that this reality is worth knowing. It is this faith that he believes will redeem our scientific souls. Miller's book should be read by everyone interested in the outcome of the still open question of whether this redemption will come about or whether ID will achieve its contrary goals.
Miller thus seems uniquely qualified to write about the battle over evolution. And he does so in Only A Theory, which is a lucid and thought provoking examination of the conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Miller avoids much of the bitterness and insults which have marked the writings of some partisans on both sides of this issue, from Richard Dawkins to the Discovery Institute. Instead, Miller is reasoned and reasonable. But that does not mean that he lacks a point of view. He has one, and he expresses it forcefully and persuasively, and even condemns those who take the position that all ideas have equal merit.
Miller examines intelligent design, looking at its shortcomings and mistakes and explaining why it isn't science. In part, he does this by taking its tenets seriously and then looking at the logical (or illogical) implications of those ideas. ID holds that "macroevolutionary events...are actually instances of design." That is, evolution cannot produce the type of large scale genetic or biochemical changes that result in the creation of a new species. Miller demonstrates the falsity of this idea by turning to the fossil record to illustrate the implications of this idea. The fossil record shows at least 36 distinct species of horse-like animals, in a continuous series, leading step by step to the modern horse. If ID is to be believed, the creator designed each new species after the one before it became extinct, making each new species just a little different from both the one before it, and the one after it. Hence, while the creator's handiwork created the appearance of evolution, this is, in reality, just an illusion. How and why the designer would do this are questions left unaddressed and unresolved by ID.
Miller provides the logical conclusion: "The inescapable conclusion that comes from honestly applying the idea of design to the fossil record is that the great intelligience behind ID is a serial creator. He brings into being new species again and again, inexplicably fashioning each one so that it bears a striking resemblance to a species just lost to extinction." This would make the creator "a fitful and impulsive cretor, building and destroying in countless ways that curiously resemble a supposedly nonexistent evolutionary process."
Equally devastating to ID is Miller's refutation of the contention that evolution cannot create new genetic information. Miller provides numerous examples of evolution doing just this. A particularly telling one is the bacteria that evolved an enzyme with the ability to digest nylon, a substance that had been previously unknown to any bacteria, meaning there was no way the bacteria could have had in its pre-existing genome any information about how to build an enzyme to turn nylon into food. Miller explains: "Theoretical studies that model evolution show how information for new genes is produces by the process of selection, replication, and mutation...and provide one example after another of how evolution solves the 'problem' of information by using the demands of the enviroment to generate it....The 'design' of new genes does occur, but the designer is the process of evolution itself."
Miller also deals with the shopworn ID concept of irreducible complexity, which has been shown to be wrong over and over again. It seems like every time one of the ID proponents comes up with something allegedly too complex for evolution to produce in small increments, from the eye, to the bacterial flagellum to the human blood clotting cascade, real scientists show how it did evolve step by step. Hence, while ID attempts to prove that evolution cannot produce complex biochemical systems by arguing that systems made up of multiple parts cannot function until all their parts are assembled, Miller correctly notes that this assertion "is simply not true -- not even for the favorite examples of the ID supporters themselves, including the blood-clotting machinery and the bacterial flagellum...if science took the asertions of ID seriously, it would have closed off whole lines of research that have actually turned out to be productive."
Miller shows that while ID attempts to poke holes in evolution, it fails to offer any coherent explanation of its own that holds scientific water. ID is "compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions," and "as such, it's a literal dead end." Adherents of ID are fond of saying that evolution is "only a theory," insinuating that theory means just a hunch or a guess, and ignoring that in science it means a lot more than that. However, while evolution may be "only a theory" Miller shows that ID isn't even a theory.
Miller sets forth his own belief that science and religion are not in conflict, and explains how he can be both a scientist who rejects ID as a scientific idea and a Christian who believes that God created the universe and everything in it. He concludes that evolution "really does tell us something deep and profound about the world in which we live," and explains:
"As it turns out, there really is a design to life, but it's not the clumsy, interventionist one in which life is an artificial injection into nature, a contradiction of its physical laws. Rather, it is a design in which life emerges from the laws of the universe around us. That conclusion is unavoidable, robust, and scientific. The elegent universe is a universe of life. And the name of the grand design of life is evolution."
Finally, Miller turns to the real threat posed by the proponents of ID, warning that they seek a lot more than just having ID taught side by side with evolution in the public schools. What they seek is nothing less than a redefinition of science that would allow for supernatural causation, and thereby demolish the very underpinnings of science itself. Miller writes that the antievolution movement is "truly radical in its character, aimed at using political power to distort the scientific marketplace to achieve a predetermined end -- the endorsement of a particular religious view of nature."
Miller goes on to explain that the true danger of ID "stems from the tactics and techniques the ID movement has chosen to employ in its assault on science....The core strategy of the movement is to dethrone evolution by undermining any notion that science is a genuine pathway to help us grasp the true nature of existence. Its rhetoric has centered on 'fairness,' emphasizing that evolution is just a theory, and therefore the 'theory' of design has just as much right to a place in classroom, curriculum, and textbook." As Miller recognizes, once this happens, "at a stroke, the ID strategy transforms science. The discipline of Einstein, Galileo, Darwin and Mendel is no longer driven by the unforgiving test of nature, but by the relative values of our times and of people who attempt to dominate and dictate cultural norms. Evolution's primary flaw is not that it is wrong, but that it can be used by groups whose cultural norms and values some believe should be rejected."
And therein lies the heart of the matter. ID knows it can't to win the scientific war if it plays by the rules of science. But those who believe in ID don't want to win the scientific war. They want to win the cultural war. They truly believe that science and evolution are godless, materialistic and amoral, and must be destroyed. Miller says that there can be no mistaking the true target in ID's crosshairs: the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment which gave rise to science as we know it is ID's true enemy.
To those who ask if Miller isn't being too extreme in this view, he offers the words of William Demski, one of the leading lights of the movement, who admits that the implications of ID are "radical in the true sense of this much overused word." As Demski puts it: "The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out...because they are bankrupt."
To Miller, this really is a battle for the soul of America. In his view, evolution is more than just a better story, with the advantage of being true; it is a powerful and expanding theory which draws all of biology into a single science. Nonetheless, he has no doubt that the battle over it will continue for years.
At the end, Miller poses these provocative questions: Are we willing to allow science to work? Do we have the strength and the wisdom to allow science to discard the ideas that don't work, and to search for genuine truth about the natural world? He says that to do so requires faith in an objective reality in nature and faith that this reality is worth knowing. It is this faith that he believes will redeem our scientific souls. Miller's book should be read by everyone interested in the outcome of the still open question of whether this redemption will come about or whether ID will achieve its contrary goals.
July 2, 2016
A Scientist Dissects Intelligent Design
Dr. Kenneth Miller does an excellent job in examining the arguments made by the proponents of Intelligent Design. He undermines the claim that some biological systems are irreducibly complex with a detailed look at examples such as the bacterial flagellum or blood hemoglobin. It turns out subsets of these systems function quite well for different purposes. He beautifully shows how genetic mistakes are shared between related species, meaning it is unlikely each species was separately created with exactly the same mistakes. He clearly answers the philosophical problems that Intelligent Design raises. I personally really liked the book. But is that good enough? Let me provide what I hope are some constructive suggestions.
Who is this Book For?
A question about any book is who is the intended audience? If this book is for the scientifically literate public who already understand evolutionary theory, than it is a very good book indeed. But I suspect he is also trying to reach religious believers who are unsure of what evolution should mean to them. As a believing Christian and author of a book called Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, he should be the ideal person for this task.
He tells us he believes God created a universe designed to produce life. But parts of the book read as if it were written by an atheist. Sometimes he seems to be mocking the very concept of a designer, when he really means the Designer got it right the first time and does not need to tinker with his creation. I am not suggesting we should get pages of religious testimony as Francis Collins does in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, but I think it would not hurt to use a little more religion friendly language, to reinforce that it need not be in conflict with science. Who cares if that annoys the devout atheists, they are already on side.
The Perils of Embracing Design
As a good scientist should, Dr. Miller presents the competing theory in the best possible light before challenging it. We sometimes get several pages with a quite eloquent defense of Intelligent Design (for example, pages 38 to 40). But if the reader is not a fellow scientist there are problems with this approach. People tend to remember what they read first. They will tend to remember the simple theory rather than the more complex refutation. And presenting material that people already believe will only reinforce it.
The argument is made that one should never present the opposing point of view at all. That may be a bit unrealistic when a well known viewpoint is already out there. But one should not make statements such as “For Darwinian evolution the discovery and confirmation of a principle like the Law of Conservation of Information should be devastating,” and “In short, life contains information that could only have come from an intelligent source.” And then wait several chapters before refuting these statements. Instead, dismiss the idea of “Conservation of Information” right away by demonstrating the simple computer program that is able to generate complexity, blowing this principle out of the water. Avoid doing the other side’s sales job.
Dropping the Ball in the World that Knew We Were Coming
He starts this chapter recounting being asked, “How can you tell me I am just an animal? How can you say that I’m no better than the beasts? That the only things that matter in life are to struggle, survive and mate? There’s just got to be more to life than that.”
I hope his answer to this person was not the rest of the chapter. Sure, I love talk about contingency, and the debate about convergent evolution between Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. But this is a philosophical question from a non-scientist. Get right to the point, in simple language. That would look something like the following:
Who says you are just an animal? Sure, most of your body works the same way as for an animal. What makes you different is your intelligence. That is what gives you the ability to do more than survive and mate. It’s up to you what you do with it. Don’t make excuses.
If one of your ancestors was a criminal, does that doom you to a life of crime? So if your very distant ancestors were animals, how does that prevent you from being fully human?
After the emotional issues are dealt with, then discuss why evolution is not necessarily such a random process, as some would have us believe.
The Subversion of Science
The chapter “Closing the American Scientific Mind” presents a very difficult but important concept, based on Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind. The argument is that by placing the highest priority on openness and fear of intolerance, reason and judgment have been downgraded in teaching the humanities. The worst sort of bigotry has become reaching a decision on the basis of evidence, as it reveals that one is not “open” to other ideas. Thus the mind actually becomes closed because it is trying to be too open.
Miller claims that the Intelligent Design movement is mounting a similar assault on the physical sciences. ID claims that science is biased and closed minded by insisting on a materialist approach. They merely want to “open” science up to consider new non-materialist theories. This broad minded approach, questioning the “dogma” of Darwinism, will expand the scope of science.
Never mind that “design” has no scientific meaning, and that the supposed evidence of “irreducible complexity” simply means that science does not yet fully understand something, with God the solution to every unsolved problem. It is only “fair” to consider all alternatives. It is worth noting that this also opens science to occult explanations. The real goal is to split science from materialism, and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The philosophy of moral and cognitive relativism is beyond what can be properly handled in a single chapter, or this review. However, this chapter should be read, and read again. The issues it raises are profound.
Read this Book
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in either the science of evolution, or the implications of Intelligent Design. It is worth it for the chapter on closing the scientific mind alone.
Dr. Kenneth Miller does an excellent job in examining the arguments made by the proponents of Intelligent Design. He undermines the claim that some biological systems are irreducibly complex with a detailed look at examples such as the bacterial flagellum or blood hemoglobin. It turns out subsets of these systems function quite well for different purposes. He beautifully shows how genetic mistakes are shared between related species, meaning it is unlikely each species was separately created with exactly the same mistakes. He clearly answers the philosophical problems that Intelligent Design raises. I personally really liked the book. But is that good enough? Let me provide what I hope are some constructive suggestions.
Who is this Book For?
A question about any book is who is the intended audience? If this book is for the scientifically literate public who already understand evolutionary theory, than it is a very good book indeed. But I suspect he is also trying to reach religious believers who are unsure of what evolution should mean to them. As a believing Christian and author of a book called Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, he should be the ideal person for this task.
He tells us he believes God created a universe designed to produce life. But parts of the book read as if it were written by an atheist. Sometimes he seems to be mocking the very concept of a designer, when he really means the Designer got it right the first time and does not need to tinker with his creation. I am not suggesting we should get pages of religious testimony as Francis Collins does in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, but I think it would not hurt to use a little more religion friendly language, to reinforce that it need not be in conflict with science. Who cares if that annoys the devout atheists, they are already on side.
The Perils of Embracing Design
As a good scientist should, Dr. Miller presents the competing theory in the best possible light before challenging it. We sometimes get several pages with a quite eloquent defense of Intelligent Design (for example, pages 38 to 40). But if the reader is not a fellow scientist there are problems with this approach. People tend to remember what they read first. They will tend to remember the simple theory rather than the more complex refutation. And presenting material that people already believe will only reinforce it.
The argument is made that one should never present the opposing point of view at all. That may be a bit unrealistic when a well known viewpoint is already out there. But one should not make statements such as “For Darwinian evolution the discovery and confirmation of a principle like the Law of Conservation of Information should be devastating,” and “In short, life contains information that could only have come from an intelligent source.” And then wait several chapters before refuting these statements. Instead, dismiss the idea of “Conservation of Information” right away by demonstrating the simple computer program that is able to generate complexity, blowing this principle out of the water. Avoid doing the other side’s sales job.
Dropping the Ball in the World that Knew We Were Coming
He starts this chapter recounting being asked, “How can you tell me I am just an animal? How can you say that I’m no better than the beasts? That the only things that matter in life are to struggle, survive and mate? There’s just got to be more to life than that.”
I hope his answer to this person was not the rest of the chapter. Sure, I love talk about contingency, and the debate about convergent evolution between Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. But this is a philosophical question from a non-scientist. Get right to the point, in simple language. That would look something like the following:
Who says you are just an animal? Sure, most of your body works the same way as for an animal. What makes you different is your intelligence. That is what gives you the ability to do more than survive and mate. It’s up to you what you do with it. Don’t make excuses.
If one of your ancestors was a criminal, does that doom you to a life of crime? So if your very distant ancestors were animals, how does that prevent you from being fully human?
After the emotional issues are dealt with, then discuss why evolution is not necessarily such a random process, as some would have us believe.
The Subversion of Science
The chapter “Closing the American Scientific Mind” presents a very difficult but important concept, based on Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind. The argument is that by placing the highest priority on openness and fear of intolerance, reason and judgment have been downgraded in teaching the humanities. The worst sort of bigotry has become reaching a decision on the basis of evidence, as it reveals that one is not “open” to other ideas. Thus the mind actually becomes closed because it is trying to be too open.
Miller claims that the Intelligent Design movement is mounting a similar assault on the physical sciences. ID claims that science is biased and closed minded by insisting on a materialist approach. They merely want to “open” science up to consider new non-materialist theories. This broad minded approach, questioning the “dogma” of Darwinism, will expand the scope of science.
Never mind that “design” has no scientific meaning, and that the supposed evidence of “irreducible complexity” simply means that science does not yet fully understand something, with God the solution to every unsolved problem. It is only “fair” to consider all alternatives. It is worth noting that this also opens science to occult explanations. The real goal is to split science from materialism, and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The philosophy of moral and cognitive relativism is beyond what can be properly handled in a single chapter, or this review. However, this chapter should be read, and read again. The issues it raises are profound.
Read this Book
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in either the science of evolution, or the implications of Intelligent Design. It is worth it for the chapter on closing the scientific mind alone.
October 16, 2017
Well written and erudite. To the point, but not condescending.
Dr. Miller, a professor of biology, textbook author, and champion of biological science, presents his points in a way that is both understandable and clear, but also expansive and thought-provoking.
I've had this copy on my shelf for several years, and had thought I'd read it, but I was looking for what rating I'd given it here on GoodReads could not even find that I'd shelved it as 'to-read'.
Well, that's taken care of.
"America is the greatest scientific nation the world has ever seen, and there is a reason why this is so. Science has thrived in the United States because the scientific way of thinking is part of the American character - practical, pragmatic, and based on what you are able to do, not who you are. Success in America has been based not upon appeals to nobility lineage, or authority but on direct, tangible results."
Dr. Miller, a professor of biology, textbook author, and champion of biological science, presents his points in a way that is both understandable and clear, but also expansive and thought-provoking.
I've had this copy on my shelf for several years, and had thought I'd read it, but I was looking for what rating I'd given it here on GoodReads could not even find that I'd shelved it as 'to-read'.
Well, that's taken care of.
"America is the greatest scientific nation the world has ever seen, and there is a reason why this is so. Science has thrived in the United States because the scientific way of thinking is part of the American character - practical, pragmatic, and based on what you are able to do, not who you are. Success in America has been based not upon appeals to nobility lineage, or authority but on direct, tangible results."
April 22, 2018
An incredibly helpful book, with some deeply frustrating features and passages.
First, the helpful. The book is well written, lucid, and understandable. I criticized Jerry Coyne's popular book on evolution, because he sprinkled in polemics against creationists, and did so by conflating all creationists with all conceptions of faith, and then argued against them in a very unsophisticated, unfair, and caricatured way. Coyne's book would have been fine as a book on evolution, but as an apologetic it failed terribly. For the most part, Miller, as a person of faith himself, avoids the false characterizations, and so this book is even more polemical than Coyne's, but succeeds far better as an evolution apologetic. He tackles "intelligent design" in greater detail, so while Coyne's book explains evolution better, this book exposes the flaws of ID better, and more fairly to people of faith more broadly who also see ID as a failed enterprise.
The book is frustrating however in a few key places. First, Miller appears to place the fault of the "conflict" between science and anti-evolutionists squarely on the shoulders of anti-evolutionists. Miller is a person of both faith and science, but he defends science a great deal, without acknowledging that scientists are just as vitriolic against concepts of faith, and that this vitriol has motivated many anti-evolutionists to strike out against science. The more scientists claim that their discoveries have led to the lack of a need for God, the more people of faith will see science as an antagonist. Miller does a lot to tell people of faith to "leave science to the scientists," but what of the need to turn towards his fellow scientists and tell them "Stop pretending that science settles non-scientific matters"? I understand Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" dealt more evenly with the issues, but he still clearly favors his scientific bretheren over his bretheren of faith, and he is not going to solve the conflicts until he's willing to also call out fellow scientists on their own ignorance to non-scientific issues.
Second, Miller himself clearly seems to favor science over faith, or other academic disciplines, and this is not helpful. One might suggest that each of us should favor our own discipline over others, and Miller does so near the end of the book when he calls himself a "biology evangelist." But promoting your own discipline over others is not the same as actually thinking your own superior to others, and Miller seems to lean too far towards biology as a superior discipline, as though it's better equipped to answer ALL questions, not just biological ones. He essentially suggests this on page 113 where he argues that scientists are the best equipped to "marvel at nature." This is absurd. Scientists are best equipped to marvel at nature IN THE PARTICULAR WAY THAT THEY LOOK AT NATURE, but there are other perspectives that are equally well equipped to marvel at nature, in other ways. He seems, first, to be too in love with his own perspective to see the ways that other perspectives can offer things he cannot, and second, he seems to confuse passion with an assumption towards enthusiasm in one's own discipline. I can be just as passionate as he is for my own discipline while also seeing the need to push people away from my discipline if they are better suited for another. He denies this on page 166.
Third, on page 197, he accuses ID proponents of using non-scientific arguments to make scientific claims, but he doesn't allow that non-scientific arguments can be used as non-scientific claims for natural phenomenon. In other words, there might be both a scientific and philosophical argument to be made for why a natural phenomenon took place. I agree with Miller that those two explanations should be kept within their own disciplines, and not confused. But, Miller appears to go a step further, and actually discount the philosophical aspects, even from within the discipline of philosophy. For example, in the event of a natural disaster, we should allow scientists to provide and study scientific explanations for such events, but this does not mean that such events do not ALSO have theological/philosophical explanations in addition. It is still valid to explore whether or not there is a God using natural phenomenon to his own ends. This is not a scientific question, and should not replace scientific explanation, but it is still a valid question none the less. Miller's apparent dismissal of this is an unjustified disciplinary elitism that doesn't hold up.
Overall, I quite enjoyed the book. It's a force to be reckoned with for proponents of ID, and I endorse its scientific conclusions. But we still need scientists who are also doing more to hold their own to account for the conflicts we see, and doing so will take us further in gaining more acceptance for scientific ideas in an American context.
First, the helpful. The book is well written, lucid, and understandable. I criticized Jerry Coyne's popular book on evolution, because he sprinkled in polemics against creationists, and did so by conflating all creationists with all conceptions of faith, and then argued against them in a very unsophisticated, unfair, and caricatured way. Coyne's book would have been fine as a book on evolution, but as an apologetic it failed terribly. For the most part, Miller, as a person of faith himself, avoids the false characterizations, and so this book is even more polemical than Coyne's, but succeeds far better as an evolution apologetic. He tackles "intelligent design" in greater detail, so while Coyne's book explains evolution better, this book exposes the flaws of ID better, and more fairly to people of faith more broadly who also see ID as a failed enterprise.
The book is frustrating however in a few key places. First, Miller appears to place the fault of the "conflict" between science and anti-evolutionists squarely on the shoulders of anti-evolutionists. Miller is a person of both faith and science, but he defends science a great deal, without acknowledging that scientists are just as vitriolic against concepts of faith, and that this vitriol has motivated many anti-evolutionists to strike out against science. The more scientists claim that their discoveries have led to the lack of a need for God, the more people of faith will see science as an antagonist. Miller does a lot to tell people of faith to "leave science to the scientists," but what of the need to turn towards his fellow scientists and tell them "Stop pretending that science settles non-scientific matters"? I understand Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" dealt more evenly with the issues, but he still clearly favors his scientific bretheren over his bretheren of faith, and he is not going to solve the conflicts until he's willing to also call out fellow scientists on their own ignorance to non-scientific issues.
Second, Miller himself clearly seems to favor science over faith, or other academic disciplines, and this is not helpful. One might suggest that each of us should favor our own discipline over others, and Miller does so near the end of the book when he calls himself a "biology evangelist." But promoting your own discipline over others is not the same as actually thinking your own superior to others, and Miller seems to lean too far towards biology as a superior discipline, as though it's better equipped to answer ALL questions, not just biological ones. He essentially suggests this on page 113 where he argues that scientists are the best equipped to "marvel at nature." This is absurd. Scientists are best equipped to marvel at nature IN THE PARTICULAR WAY THAT THEY LOOK AT NATURE, but there are other perspectives that are equally well equipped to marvel at nature, in other ways. He seems, first, to be too in love with his own perspective to see the ways that other perspectives can offer things he cannot, and second, he seems to confuse passion with an assumption towards enthusiasm in one's own discipline. I can be just as passionate as he is for my own discipline while also seeing the need to push people away from my discipline if they are better suited for another. He denies this on page 166.
Third, on page 197, he accuses ID proponents of using non-scientific arguments to make scientific claims, but he doesn't allow that non-scientific arguments can be used as non-scientific claims for natural phenomenon. In other words, there might be both a scientific and philosophical argument to be made for why a natural phenomenon took place. I agree with Miller that those two explanations should be kept within their own disciplines, and not confused. But, Miller appears to go a step further, and actually discount the philosophical aspects, even from within the discipline of philosophy. For example, in the event of a natural disaster, we should allow scientists to provide and study scientific explanations for such events, but this does not mean that such events do not ALSO have theological/philosophical explanations in addition. It is still valid to explore whether or not there is a God using natural phenomenon to his own ends. This is not a scientific question, and should not replace scientific explanation, but it is still a valid question none the less. Miller's apparent dismissal of this is an unjustified disciplinary elitism that doesn't hold up.
Overall, I quite enjoyed the book. It's a force to be reckoned with for proponents of ID, and I endorse its scientific conclusions. But we still need scientists who are also doing more to hold their own to account for the conflicts we see, and doing so will take us further in gaining more acceptance for scientific ideas in an American context.
September 18, 2010
The first half of this book is fairly boring for anyone who already accepts evolutionary theory. Miller does, however, present a thorough and up-to-date accounting of the best scientific evidence for evolution, which I imagine would be helpful for non-science types next time they find themselves debating the issue with a "non-believer." To me, the true value of this book lies in the later chapters that discuss the place of humankind in the world and the importance of scientific empiricism.
The author is something of a spokesperson for evolution (he was one of the witnesses in the Dover evolution case) and he explains that, when he's confronted by hostile audiences, often their primary objection to evolution is that it strips life of any meaning. If we are all just products of random mutation, then what's the point of anything? Miller's answer is to point out the sheer improbability that the appropriate conditions and stepwise evolutionary changes required to generate a species with our level of intelligence would ever occur; and yet the evidence shows they did, and here we are. In essence, the existence of human beings is indeed miraculous even without the religious origin story. We alone of all the creatures on Earth can deliberately change the world, for better or worse, thorough our intelligence and actions, and that gives humanity a tremendous responsibility and purpose.
Many scientists believe it's a waste of time to keep answering critics of evolution. That benighted, religious fanatics are too dogmatic or ignorant to understand the science behind evolution and who cares what they think anyway. Miller makes a powerful case for why it is so important to keep having the debate. The easily refuted tenets of creationism have given way to the pseudo-scientific arguments of intelligent design. This re-branding of creationism doesn't just oppose evolution, but the foundations of science in general–the acquiring and analyzing knowledge gained through observation of the natural world. (Their philosophy is outlined in the Wedge Document, look it up.) Intelligent design proponents want to open up space for supernatural knowledge in our scientific understanding. Miller argues that if the scientific community treats ID as a nuisance rather than systematically and exhaustively refuting its unfounded claims, there will be a steady erosion of the rigor of scientific thought in the public domain. Considering where we already are today, I find that a frightening possibility.
The author is something of a spokesperson for evolution (he was one of the witnesses in the Dover evolution case) and he explains that, when he's confronted by hostile audiences, often their primary objection to evolution is that it strips life of any meaning. If we are all just products of random mutation, then what's the point of anything? Miller's answer is to point out the sheer improbability that the appropriate conditions and stepwise evolutionary changes required to generate a species with our level of intelligence would ever occur; and yet the evidence shows they did, and here we are. In essence, the existence of human beings is indeed miraculous even without the religious origin story. We alone of all the creatures on Earth can deliberately change the world, for better or worse, thorough our intelligence and actions, and that gives humanity a tremendous responsibility and purpose.
Many scientists believe it's a waste of time to keep answering critics of evolution. That benighted, religious fanatics are too dogmatic or ignorant to understand the science behind evolution and who cares what they think anyway. Miller makes a powerful case for why it is so important to keep having the debate. The easily refuted tenets of creationism have given way to the pseudo-scientific arguments of intelligent design. This re-branding of creationism doesn't just oppose evolution, but the foundations of science in general–the acquiring and analyzing knowledge gained through observation of the natural world. (Their philosophy is outlined in the Wedge Document, look it up.) Intelligent design proponents want to open up space for supernatural knowledge in our scientific understanding. Miller argues that if the scientific community treats ID as a nuisance rather than systematically and exhaustively refuting its unfounded claims, there will be a steady erosion of the rigor of scientific thought in the public domain. Considering where we already are today, I find that a frightening possibility.
April 12, 2013
I wish I could get everyone to read this book, as it excellently deals with an issue that is critical to me. Miller's voice is especially insightful as a faithful Catholic, though this book spends less time dealing with the supposed controversies between evolution and religion than Miller's Finding Darwin's God (another must read). In my three years working as a Bio 100 TA, the most common argument for teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design was: "What's the harm? Students should be educated in both in order to make a studied choice between the two." Miller exposes the real harm being done to the American scientific institution by going in depth into the history of ID, scientifically analyzing its claims, and considering its goals. The end conclusion must be clear: ID is not accepted by mainstream academia not as a result of an atheistic agenda, but simply because it is absolutely unscientific. It only seeks to establish itself by disproving Darwinian evolution, but offers no predicitve theories or testable claims of its own. It does, however, manage to impede scientific progress by making one of the most important scientific theories of all time into a boiling comtroversy. Religiously minded scientists, such as myself, do not fear that science will disprove God, because it is impossible. This is His creation and the laws of science are His laws; I have found increased faith in my study of evolution and biology.
For science-minded individuals, this book will make you proud to be a scientist; you will joy in the elegance of the scientific method. For opponents of evolution, this book will dispel myths and false claims about evolutionary science or, in the very least, bring you up to the level of debate necessary to be conversant on the subject. Hopefully, and more importantly, it can win a few of you over.
For science-minded individuals, this book will make you proud to be a scientist; you will joy in the elegance of the scientific method. For opponents of evolution, this book will dispel myths and false claims about evolutionary science or, in the very least, bring you up to the level of debate necessary to be conversant on the subject. Hopefully, and more importantly, it can win a few of you over.
July 27, 2011
Perhaps my atheist friends will call me an accommodationist, and my Christian friends will wonder why I am so fixated on this one topic (especially since it's "just a theory"). So be it. But this is in my opinion the most important book for anyone wanting to know about intelligent design and the ensuing "controversy" to read.
It is a well-written book (not by a godless heathen such as myself either) about the science, politics and theology all wrapped up in the ID movement. Miller also argues clearly why it is such an important topic, and why we should all be troubled. For the ID strategy is about far more than just evolution, and it is a "destroy the village in order to save it" strategy that is a full on attack on science and reason.
I could not recommend a more important book for anyone who has pondered the intelligent design thesis from either a scientific, theological or political view.
It is a well-written book (not by a godless heathen such as myself either) about the science, politics and theology all wrapped up in the ID movement. Miller also argues clearly why it is such an important topic, and why we should all be troubled. For the ID strategy is about far more than just evolution, and it is a "destroy the village in order to save it" strategy that is a full on attack on science and reason.
I could not recommend a more important book for anyone who has pondered the intelligent design thesis from either a scientific, theological or political view.
October 19, 2021
The dispute began innocently, with textbook publisher Prentice Hall and a run-of-the-mill biology textbook. Frustratingly, but not surprisingly, the religious climate in Georgia at the time made teaching honest biology harder than it should be. The Cobb County School District included with every biology textbook a sticker:
Kenneth Miller is the author of this textbook, and Only a Theory is his story.
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2019/...
Kenneth Miller is the author of this textbook, and Only a Theory is his story.
Read more: https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2019/...
March 30, 2022
the last four chapters (and there were only eight in total) were a mostly philosophical view that Intelligent Design (ID) was a threat to Science by presenting itself as science. One chapter would have sufficed.
Chapter One set the groundwork; Chapter two outlined the ID position and tackled the notion of irreducability comparing a five part mousetrap to spinning flagellum, both initially apparently irreducible in function.
It is in this chapter that it is mentioned that if the human genome were printed out as a book, it would take one million pages (a thousand books of one thousand pages each).
Chapter three goes into patterns in changes on lifeforms: sequential appearance; and individual species are descendents of precedents. Fossil horses are used as an example of microevolution. Things that are "created" disappear relatively soon. [i wouldn't call million of years soon] Then comes the deconstructing the mousetrap. Miller comes up with exceptions (for instance a three part "mousetrap" could function as a spitball catapault) and the flagellum can work in a simpler form (having functions unrelated. it doesn't change that each of the components (of the mouse trap) are designed. Miller likens a Type III Secertory System (synethisize powerful deadly toxins) to the Spitball mechanism, as could have been a component of a flagellum (having structural similarities).
Miller points out that six gene-swapping events could have produced nine of the clotting factors (required to make blood clot).
Miller mentions in this chapter that we have no prime number messaging like in the novel/movie "Contact" ignoring that we have the Fabanucci number seqence in plants.
A great example of evolution (in the 1970s) happening is that an enzyme, "nylonase" came about allowing bacteria to break down artificially made nylon.
An example of old genes go to a new purpose was an extra copy of a digestive enzyme with deletions duplicated 41 times to be the beginning of a gene that allowed southern ocean fish to have an antifreeze.
In one chapter he mentions how the Cambrian explosion wouldn't have happened again but two pages later suggests that similar animals appearing in Autralia and elsewhere is only l logical outcome of Evolution.
Chapter four dwells on our missing vitamin C fabricator. The other apes have the ablity to make Vit C but due to mutations it no longer works in humans. We have the gulonolactone oxidase on Chromosome 8 like chimps and gorillas but it is defective. Why wouldn't a designer correct that?
Chapter One set the groundwork; Chapter two outlined the ID position and tackled the notion of irreducability comparing a five part mousetrap to spinning flagellum, both initially apparently irreducible in function.
It is in this chapter that it is mentioned that if the human genome were printed out as a book, it would take one million pages (a thousand books of one thousand pages each).
Chapter three goes into patterns in changes on lifeforms: sequential appearance; and individual species are descendents of precedents. Fossil horses are used as an example of microevolution. Things that are "created" disappear relatively soon. [i wouldn't call million of years soon] Then comes the deconstructing the mousetrap. Miller comes up with exceptions (for instance a three part "mousetrap" could function as a spitball catapault) and the flagellum can work in a simpler form (having functions unrelated. it doesn't change that each of the components (of the mouse trap) are designed. Miller likens a Type III Secertory System (synethisize powerful deadly toxins) to the Spitball mechanism, as could have been a component of a flagellum (having structural similarities).
Miller points out that six gene-swapping events could have produced nine of the clotting factors (required to make blood clot).
Miller mentions in this chapter that we have no prime number messaging like in the novel/movie "Contact" ignoring that we have the Fabanucci number seqence in plants.
A great example of evolution (in the 1970s) happening is that an enzyme, "nylonase" came about allowing bacteria to break down artificially made nylon.
An example of old genes go to a new purpose was an extra copy of a digestive enzyme with deletions duplicated 41 times to be the beginning of a gene that allowed southern ocean fish to have an antifreeze.
In one chapter he mentions how the Cambrian explosion wouldn't have happened again but two pages later suggests that similar animals appearing in Autralia and elsewhere is only l logical outcome of Evolution.
Chapter four dwells on our missing vitamin C fabricator. The other apes have the ablity to make Vit C but due to mutations it no longer works in humans. We have the gulonolactone oxidase on Chromosome 8 like chimps and gorillas but it is defective. Why wouldn't a designer correct that?
June 13, 2015
"დარვინის ღმერთის" შემდეგ, რომელიც კენ მილერის ერთ-ერთი საუკეთესო წიგნია "გონებრივი დიზაინის" კრიტიკის თვალსაზრისით, ძალიან მაინტერესებდა მისი მეორე წიგნი "მხოლოდ თეორია" ბოლოს როგორც იქნა მისი დროც დადგა.
წიგნი იწყება ID-ის არგუმენტების გაბათილებით და ეხება მათ ძირითად მტკიცებებს, როგორიცაა irreducible complexity "განუყოფელი სირთულე" უილიამ დემბსკის "სპეციალური სირთულე" და "ინფორმაციის შენახვის კანონი" რომელიც ამბობს რომ შეუძლებელია ბუნებრივმა კანონებმა წარმოქმნან ახალი ინფორმაცია.
ID-ის არგუმენტების გაბათილებას, ისედაც მცირე წიგნში, არც თუ ისე დიდი ადგილი უკავია, თუმცა მილერი ძალიან კარგ, ნათელ და მოკლე დემონსტრირებას აკეთებს თუ რატომ არის ID მცდარი, არამეცნიერული, რელიგიურად მოტივირებული ფსევდომეცნიერება. მე ვფიქრობ ამ საკითხში მილერი ერთ-ერთი საუკეთესოა
წიგნის მეორე ნაწილში ავტორი ID-ის კრიტიკას განაგრძობს არა მეცნიერულ, არამედ პოლიტიკურ და სოციალურ ჭრილში. თუ რა საფრთხეს შეიცავს ID არა მხოლოდ ევოლუციისთვის არამედ ზოგადად მეცნიერებისთვის, ამერიკის მეცნიერული სულისთვის.
მართალია პირველი ნაწილი ისეთი ძლიერი და ყოვლისმომცველი არაა როგორც "დარვინის ღმერთში" მაგრამ ძალიან საჭირო და საინტერესო.
მეორე ნაწილშიც ძირითადად ვეთანხმები მილერს, ცოტა რელიგიურ და ერთი ორ სხვა სადავო შეხედულებას თუ გამოვაკლებთ.
"დარვინის ღმერთის ძიებაში" აშკარად უფრო ძლიერი წიგნია, მაგრამ ისე მოხდა რომ მას ჩემგან სამი ვარსკვლავი ერგო, წინამდებარე წიგნს კი ოთხი. "დარვინის ღმერთს" ხუთსაც დავუწერდი სიამოვნებით, თეიზმის და ევოლუციის შეჯვარება რომ ამოგვეღო წიგნიდან. ამ წიგნში ეს შეჯვარება ძალიან მცირე დოზით მოხვდა, რამაც ცოტა გაზარდა მისი რეიტინგი.
ასევე აქ მილერმა მეტ ნაკლებად გასცა პასუხი ჩემთვის საინტერესო კითხვაზე, რომელიც "დარვინის ღმერთმა" დამიტოვა. კერძოდ: როგორ ეწყობა ერთმანეთს ევოლუცია და ადამიანის ცენტრალური როლი შემოქმედაბაში. ბიბლია ამბობს "თქვა ღმერთმა: გავაჩინოთ კაცი ჩვენს ხატად, ჩვენს მსგავსებად" აღსანიშნავია რომ ეს არ არის ბიბლიის რომელიმე რიგითი პასაჟი რომელის ათასგვარ ინტერპრეტაციას მიმართავენ მორწმუნეები. ეს ქრისტიანული რწმენა-წარმოდგენების ცენტრალური ნაწილია: - სამყარო ადამიანისთვი���აა შექმნილი. მეორეს მხირვ ევოლუცია გვეუბნება, რომ თუ ევოლუციურ პროცესს ვიდეოლენტის მსგავსად გადავახვევთ უკან, ყოველ ჯერზე მივიღებთ ბუნების განსხვავებულ ისტორიას. შესაძლოა მეორედ პრიმატი და ადამიანი არც კი წარმოიშვას. ევოლუცია ბრმა პროცესია, მას სრულებით არ აქვს მიზანი წარმოქმნას ადამიანი ან სხვა რომელიმე არსება. ის რაც არსებობს, ბუნების შემთხვევითი მოვლენების კასკადური ისტორიაა.
მილერი ამ პრობლემას შემდეგნაირად ხსნის: ევოლიცია ადაპტაციური სივრცეების მეშვეობით ქმნის მსგავს სტრუქტურებს, ადაპტაციური სივრცეები წარმოადგენენ ნიშებს, სადაც მოქმედებენ გარკვეული ბუნების კანონები. ასეთი მსგავსი სივრცეები შეზღუდვებისა თუ შესაძლებლობების წყალობით ორ მნიშვნელოვნად დაცილებულ შტოს ათავსებენ თანაბარ პირობებში, სადაც ვითარდება მეტ ნაკლებად მსგავსი მახასიათებლები. მაგალითად მოყავს ძველ მსოფლიოს 100 მილიონი წლით მოწყვეტილი ავსტრალია, რომელმაც ბოლო 100 მილიონი წელი საკუთარი ევოლუციური გზა განვლო და ჩამოაყალიბა ჩანთოსანი ძუძუმწოვრების განშტოება, რომლის ბევრი სახეობა, არაჩვეულებვრივად გავს, ევრაზიის და აფრიკის ძუძუმწოვრებს. მილერი სპეკულირებს, რომ ევოლუციის "რესტარტის" შემთხვევაში ნამდვილად არ მოხდება ისე როგორც ჩვენ ვიცით ევოლუციური ისტორიიდან, ალბათ არ განვითარდება პრიმატების ჯგუფი, არც ადამიანი, მაგრამ, იმის გამო რომ ადაპტაციური სივრცეები წარმოქმნიან მსგავს მახასიათებლებს, ალბათ გაჩნდებოდა მოაზროვნე არსება, რომელიც დასვამდა ჩვენ მსგავს სიღრმისეულ კითხვებს, თუ სად ვართ, ვინ ვართ და საიდან მოვედით.
ალბათ ეს ყველაზე კარგი არგუმენტია, იმათგან რაც შეიძლება მორწმუნემ მოიფიქროს, ევოლუციის შემთხვევითობის და თეიზმის პრედეტერმინებული ღვთაებრივი მიზანის გასაერთიანებლად. თუმცა ამ არგუმენტსაც ბევრი პრობლემა აქვს. ქრისტიანობა ცენტრალურ ადგილს ანიჭებს არა ცალსახად აზროვნებას და ინტელექტს, (თუმცა ისინი ადამიანისთვისაა მხოლოდ დამახასიათებელი) არამედ სახეობა ადამიანს. შეიძლება ეს საკმათოა, თუმცა აღსანიშნავია სხვა პრობლემებიც, ჩემი აზრით მილერი ზედმეტად დარწმუნებულია იმაში რომ მსგავსი პრინციპი აუცილებლად შექმნის მოაზროვნე არსებას. ეგზო პლანეტარული აღმოჩენების ეპოქის გარიჟრაჟზე, თითქმის დარწმუნებული ვარ რომ ჩვენ აღმოვაჩენთ, რაგინდ დიდი რაოდენობის პლანეტებს, სადაც იქნება სიცოცხლე, მარტივიც და რთულიც, რომელზეც არ იქნება ინტელექტუალური რასა ტექნოლოგიური ცივილიზაციით. თუმცა შესაძლოა ბევრგან იყოს კიდეც, მაგრამ ჩემი აზრით მილერის შემოთავაზებული პრინციპი არ ქმნის არანაირ აუცილებლობას დედამიწის მსგავს პლანეტაზე წარმოიქმნას ინტელექტუალური არსება. ამის თქმის საფუძველს მაძლევს სწორედ ევოლუციური პროცესის ძალიან ბევრი კასკადური მოვლენის საჭირო პრინციპით აწყობა. ინტელექტი ძალიან მაღალი დონის იარაღია, რომელის ჩამოყალიბებამაც ბევრი ბეწვის ხიდი უნდა გამოიაროს. რასაც ევოლუციის ყოველი "რესტარტი" არ მოიტანს. ალბათ იქნება ბევრი ალტერნატიული სამყარო სადაც, მარდი ფეხები, ბასრი ბრჭყალები და მსგავსი მახასიათებლები სრულიად საკმარისი იქნება გადარჩენისთვის ბრძოლაში.
უნდა ავღნიშნო რომ მილერი ძალიან კარგად წერს, ნათლად და გასაგებად აყალიბებს არგუმენტებს და ერთ-ერთი საუკეთესოა ევოლუციის და გონებრივი დიზაინის საკითხებზე მსჯელობაში.
წიგნი ასევე მნიშვნელოვანია, იმით რომ მილერი ID-ის პოლიტიკურ და იდეოლოგიურ მიზნებს ააშკარავებს, სწორად წარმოადგენს მათ როგორც არა რიგითი მეცნიერული რევოლუციის სულისჩამდგმელებს, როგორც თავად მათ მიმდევრებს წარმოუდგენიათ, არამედ როგორც ფუნდამენტალისტ ადამიანებს რომლებსაც უნდა მთელ მეცნიერებას გამოაცალონ ფუძე და ძიების ნატურალისტური პრინციპები ჩაანაცვლონ ზებუნებრივის დაშვებით. თუ მეცნიერება დაუშვებს რომ მიწისძვრა სადღაც შესაძლოა ვინმეს ცოდვების გამო ხდება, თუ მეცნიერება თანაბრად განიხილავს დაავადების წყაროდ ვირუსს და ეშმაკით შეპყრობას მაშინ ის მეცნიერება დაღუპულია, რადგან ზებუნებრივი თეორიების შემოწმება პრინციულად შეუძლებელია, შესაბამისად მეცნიერული ცნობისმოყვარე სულიც ნელ ნელა გაუჩინარდება, ბოლო-ბოლო რატომ იმტვრიო თავი რთული ექპსერიმენტებით, მათემტიკით, დაკვირვებით. როცა უფრო ადვილია რომელიმე ზებუნებრივ ძალას დააბარლო?
მილერის აზრით, კულტურული რელატივიზმი რომელიც ID-ის სახით ამერიკის საზოგადოებაში შეიჭრა საფრთხეს უქმნის ამერიკის მეცნიერულ სულს.
რეკომენდაციას ვუწევ ყველას.
წიგნი იწყება ID-ის არგუმენტების გაბათილებით და ეხება მათ ძირითად მტკიცებებს, როგორიცაა irreducible complexity "განუყოფელი სირთულე" უილიამ დემბსკის "სპეციალური სირთულე" და "ინფორმაციის შენახვის კანონი" რომელიც ამბობს რომ შეუძლებელია ბუნებრივმა კანონებმა წარმოქმნან ახალი ინფორმაცია.
ID-ის არგუმენტების გაბათილებას, ისედაც მცირე წიგნში, არც თუ ისე დიდი ადგილი უკავია, თუმცა მილერი ძალიან კარგ, ნათელ და მოკლე დემონსტრირებას აკეთებს თუ რატომ არის ID მცდარი, არამეცნიერული, რელიგიურად მოტივირებული ფსევდომეცნიერება. მე ვფიქრობ ამ საკითხში მილერი ერთ-ერთი საუკეთესოა
წიგნის მეორე ნაწილში ავტორი ID-ის კრიტიკას განაგრძობს არა მეცნიერულ, არამედ პოლიტიკურ და სოციალურ ჭრილში. თუ რა საფრთხეს შეიცავს ID არა მხოლოდ ევოლუციისთვის არამედ ზოგადად მეცნიერებისთვის, ამერიკის მეცნიერული სულისთვის.
მართალია პირველი ნაწილი ისეთი ძლიერი და ყოვლისმომცველი არაა როგორც "დარვინის ღმერთში" მაგრამ ძალიან საჭირო და საინტერესო.
მეორე ნაწილშიც ძირითადად ვეთანხმები მილერს, ცოტა რელიგიურ და ერთი ორ სხვა სადავო შეხედულებას თუ გამოვაკლებთ.
"დარვინის ღმერთის ძიებაში" აშკარად უფრო ძლიერი წიგნია, მაგრამ ისე მოხდა რომ მას ჩემგან სამი ვარსკვლავი ერგო, წინამდებარე წიგნს კი ოთხი. "დარვინის ღმერთს" ხუთსაც დავუწერდი სიამოვნებით, თეიზმის და ევოლუციის შეჯვარება რომ ამოგვეღო წიგნიდან. ამ წიგნში ეს შეჯვარება ძალიან მცირე დოზით მოხვდა, რამაც ცოტა გაზარდა მისი რეიტინგი.
ასევე აქ მილერმა მეტ ნაკლებად გასცა პასუხი ჩემთვის საინტერესო კითხვაზე, რომელიც "დარვინის ღმერთმა" დამიტოვა. კერძოდ: როგორ ეწყობა ერთმანეთს ევოლუცია და ადამიანის ცენტრალური როლი შემოქმედაბაში. ბიბლია ამბობს "თქვა ღმერთმა: გავაჩინოთ კაცი ჩვენს ხატად, ჩვენს მსგავსებად" აღსანიშნავია რომ ეს არ არის ბიბლიის რომელიმე რიგითი პასაჟი რომელის ათასგვარ ინტერპრეტაციას მიმართავენ მორწმუნეები. ეს ქრისტიანული რწმენა-წარმოდგენების ცენტრალური ნაწილია: - სამყარო ადამიანისთვი���აა შექმნილი. მეორეს მხირვ ევოლუცია გვეუბნება, რომ თუ ევოლუციურ პროცესს ვიდეოლენტის მსგავსად გადავახვევთ უკან, ყოველ ჯერზე მივიღებთ ბუნების განსხვავებულ ისტორიას. შესაძლოა მეორედ პრიმატი და ადამიანი არც კი წარმოიშვას. ევოლუცია ბრმა პროცესია, მას სრულებით არ აქვს მიზანი წარმოქმნას ადამიანი ან სხვა რომელიმე არსება. ის რაც არსებობს, ბუნების შემთხვევითი მოვლენების კასკადური ისტორიაა.
მილერი ამ პრობლემას შემდეგნაირად ხსნის: ევოლიცია ადაპტაციური სივრცეების მეშვეობით ქმნის მსგავს სტრუქტურებს, ადაპტაციური სივრცეები წარმოადგენენ ნიშებს, სადაც მოქმედებენ გარკვეული ბუნების კანონები. ასეთი მსგავსი სივრცეები შეზღუდვებისა თუ შესაძლებლობების წყალობით ორ მნიშვნელოვნად დაცილებულ შტოს ათავსებენ თანაბარ პირობებში, სადაც ვითარდება მეტ ნაკლებად მსგავსი მახასიათებლები. მაგალითად მოყავს ძველ მსოფლიოს 100 მილიონი წლით მოწყვეტილი ავსტრალია, რომელმაც ბოლო 100 მილიონი წელი საკუთარი ევოლუციური გზა განვლო და ჩამოაყალიბა ჩანთოსანი ძუძუმწოვრების განშტოება, რომლის ბევრი სახეობა, არაჩვეულებვრივად გავს, ევრაზიის და აფრიკის ძუძუმწოვრებს. მილერი სპეკულირებს, რომ ევოლუციის "რესტარტის" შემთხვევაში ნამდვილად არ მოხდება ისე როგორც ჩვენ ვიცით ევოლუციური ისტორიიდან, ალბათ არ განვითარდება პრიმატების ჯგუფი, არც ადამიანი, მაგრამ, იმის გამო რომ ადაპტაციური სივრცეები წარმოქმნიან მსგავს მახასიათებლებს, ალბათ გაჩნდებოდა მოაზროვნე არსება, რომელიც დასვამდა ჩვენ მსგავს სიღრმისეულ კითხვებს, თუ სად ვართ, ვინ ვართ და საიდან მოვედით.
ალბათ ეს ყველაზე კარგი არგუმენტია, იმათგან რაც შეიძლება მორწმუნემ მოიფიქროს, ევოლუციის შემთხვევითობის და თეიზმის პრედეტერმინებული ღვთაებრივი მიზანის გასაერთიანებლად. თუმცა ამ არგუმენტსაც ბევრი პრობლემა აქვს. ქრისტიანობა ცენტრალურ ადგილს ანიჭებს არა ცალსახად აზროვნებას და ინტელექტს, (თუმცა ისინი ადამიანისთვისაა მხოლოდ დამახასიათებელი) არამედ სახეობა ადამიანს. შეიძლება ეს საკმათოა, თუმცა აღსანიშნავია სხვა პრობლემებიც, ჩემი აზრით მილერი ზედმეტად დარწმუნებულია იმაში რომ მსგავსი პრინციპი აუცილებლად შექმნის მოაზროვნე არსებას. ეგზო პლანეტარული აღმოჩენების ეპოქის გარიჟრაჟზე, თითქმის დარწმუნებული ვარ რომ ჩვენ აღმოვაჩენთ, რაგინდ დიდი რაოდენობის პლანეტებს, სადაც იქნება სიცოცხლე, მარტივიც და რთულიც, რომელზეც არ იქნება ინტელექტუალური რასა ტექნოლოგიური ცივილიზაციით. თუმცა შესაძლოა ბევრგან იყოს კიდეც, მაგრამ ჩემი აზრით მილერის შემოთავაზებული პრინციპი არ ქმნის არანაირ აუცილებლობას დედამიწის მსგავს პლანეტაზე წარმოიქმნას ინტელექტუალური არსება. ამის თქმის საფუძველს მაძლევს სწორედ ევოლუციური პროცესის ძალიან ბევრი კასკადური მოვლენის საჭირო პრინციპით აწყობა. ინტელექტი ძალიან მაღალი დონის იარაღია, რომელის ჩამოყალიბებამაც ბევრი ბეწვის ხიდი უნდა გამოიაროს. რასაც ევოლუციის ყოველი "რესტარტი" არ მოიტანს. ალბათ იქნება ბევრი ალტერნატიული სამყარო სადაც, მარდი ფეხები, ბასრი ბრჭყალები და მსგავსი მახასიათებლები სრულიად საკმარისი იქნება გადარჩენისთვის ბრძოლაში.
უნდა ავღნიშნო რომ მილერი ძალიან კარგად წერს, ნათლად და გასაგებად აყალიბებს არგუმენტებს და ერთ-ერთი საუკეთესოა ევოლუციის და გონებრივი დიზაინის საკითხებზე მსჯელობაში.
წიგნი ასევე მნიშვნელოვანია, იმით რომ მილერი ID-ის პოლიტიკურ და იდეოლოგიურ მიზნებს ააშკარავებს, სწორად წარმოადგენს მათ როგორც არა რიგითი მეცნიერული რევოლუციის სულისჩამდგმელებს, როგორც თავად მათ მიმდევრებს წარმოუდგენიათ, არამედ როგორც ფუნდამენტალისტ ადამიანებს რომლებსაც უნდა მთელ მეცნიერებას გამოაცალონ ფუძე და ძიების ნატურალისტური პრინციპები ჩაანაცვლონ ზებუნებრივის დაშვებით. თუ მეცნიერება დაუშვებს რომ მიწისძვრა სადღაც შესაძლოა ვინმეს ცოდვების გამო ხდება, თუ მეცნიერება თანაბრად განიხილავს დაავადების წყაროდ ვირუსს და ეშმაკით შეპყრობას მაშინ ის მეცნიერება დაღუპულია, რადგან ზებუნებრივი თეორიების შემოწმება პრინციულად შეუძლებელია, შესაბამისად მეცნიერული ცნობისმოყვარე სულიც ნელ ნელა გაუჩინარდება, ბოლო-ბოლო რატომ იმტვრიო თავი რთული ექპსერიმენტებით, მათემტიკით, დაკვირვებით. როცა უფრო ადვილია რომელიმე ზებუნებრივ ძალას დააბარლო?
მილერის აზრით, კულტურული რელატივიზმი რომელიც ID-ის სახით ამერიკის საზოგადოებაში შეიჭრა საფრთხეს უქმნის ამერიკის მეცნიერულ სულს.
რეკომენდაციას ვუწევ ყველას.
June 22, 2017
Ken Miller’s Only A Theory provides a critique of ID arguments and a defense/celebration of darwinism. It also explores the history of and the motivations behind the ID movement and the reasons for this movement’s broad popular appeal. Arguing that the ID movement is dangerously misguided in its intent, Miller nevertheless thinks that ID is popular because it responds to a widely shared felt need. Miller attempts to use evolutionary theory to meet this need in a different way. Miller also argues that there are very high stakes in the political struggle between ID and mainstream science. I found this book an interesting and informative read. Though I share Miller’s conviction that theism and evolution are compatible, and though I think he is dead on when he claims it is inadequate to equate support for ID with a commitment to biblical literalism, on certain other issues I tend to look at things somewhat differently than Miller.
Miller considers “irreducible complexity” the core idea of the ID movement, because it is intended to provide opponents of Darwin more ammunition than the so-called argument from incredulity by establishing positive proof of darwinism’s inadequacy. Miller takes issue with this alleged positive proof, and also with other arguments embraced by the ID crowd intended to cast doubt on darwinism’s creative power. Critiquing claims concerning such ID icons as the mousetrap and the bacterial flagellum, and utilizing recent genetic findings, computer modeling, various laboratory experiments, fossil evidence, and new supplementary trends in evolutionary thinking (such as facilitated development and evo/devo), Miller not only dismisses the irreducible complexity argument, he asserts that the argument from incredulity-which he never considered a very strong critique of darwinism to begin with-has less force than ever before, because darwinism has greater scientific validation than ever before. Not content merely to critique specific ID claims, Miller states “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such it’s a literal dead end, and seems intended to get us to do just one thing: to step back from science and acknowledge the creative efforts of an unnamed power behind the mysteries of life.” (p. 87)
Miller’s book makes a strong case that darwinism is not a dying theory. Even so, by tending to conflate evolution and darwinism, and by focusing on what even Phillip Johnson acknowledges is an uneven struggle between darwinism and ID, the book might give the reader the misleading impression that though our understanding of darwinian evolution is being refined over time, the darwinian framework itself is beyond scientific criticism. For instance, Miller did not talk about self-organization theory, which, though it does not deny that darwinism plays an important role in evolution, holds that as of yet obscurely understood “laws of form” are necessary for adequately understanding the development of biological complexity, and that our understanding of evolution will alter significantly as we eventually come to better understand these laws. The mere existence of self organization theory (irrespective of whether or not it ever makes much meaningful progress) indicates that one need not be-as Miller seems to suggest-scientifically uninformed or a science denier to think that darwinism’s creative power might be somewhat overrated. Also, some recent trends (such as evo/devo) that are generally thought of as refinements to the darwinian conception of evolution are actually considered by some thinkers to work against it. (Jerry Fodor would be one such thinker.) Setting aside self-organization theory and the potential implications of trends like evo/devo, I’ll also add that Miller seems, to this lay reader at least, overly enamored with “Darwin’s great idea” when, in the course of comparing darwinism favorably to ID, he says “the beauty of evolutionary theory is that it is master of past and present, and that it ties each into a seamless fabric of science and of existence.” (p.110) Isn’t it wishful thinking to assume any one scientific theory could ever do all that?
Though Miller thinks ID makes many shoddy claims that do not withstand scientific scrutiny, and that it is ultimately a dead end, ID’s most fundamental problem from Miller’s perspective as an adherent of methodological naturalism is that its attempted renovation of science to include the supernatural is intrinsically non-scientific. Interestingly enough, Miller only emphasizes a defense of methodological naturalism in science towards the end of his book, after first exploring various ID claims and finding them meritless. This strikes me as a sound rhetorical strategy for winning over readers to his point of view, since most open minded readers initially sympathetic to an ID perspective would probably not care whether or not ID fit within the framework of methodological naturalism so long as they considered ID claims to be true.
However, whatever one ultimately happens to think regarding the truth status of ID, it seems clear that Miller’s presentation of ID is less informative than it could have been. This can be demonstrated by considering the example of the late Antony Flew, a British philosopher who adhered to the notion of methodological naturalism in science, and who articulated a philosophical, as distinct from scientific, approach to ID that was nevertheless crucially informed by scientific work in an area of study generally ignored by Miller. Flew, who moved from atheism to deism near the end of his life, considered recent work on the origin of life to point to the activity of a creative Intelligence. Said Flew: “The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’?” Flew’s self-styled “pilgrimage of reason” led him to the conclusion that this question never could be satisfactorily answered, and this was crucial for his turn to deism. Flew’s well publicized change of mind,which happened in the years leading up to Miller’s book, does not conveniently fit into Miller’s portrayal of ID. Flew had no religious agenda, for instance, and he was not seeking to redefine science. Also, he made philosophically based arguments for ID relating to the origin of life that Miller’s book generally do not address. (Though Miller is silent concerning the emergence of self replication capabilities and coded chemistry, he does volunteer that the purpose, or final cause of organisms is survival. (p.23) However, unlike Flew, who wondered how a universe of mindless matter could produce beings with intrinsic ends, Miller proceeds as if there is nothing really to wonder about, because although there used to be a widely held, fundamental distinction made between life and non-life, this distinction is of mere historical interest today since it is now a scientific commonplace to reduce life to a chemical and physical phenomenon. As Miller proclaims: “the capacity for life is built into matter.” (p.119). Apparently Miller considers this scientific commonplace the obvious final word on the subject, rather than as a somewhat counterintuitive proposition that could serve as an invitation to further thinking.) It should also be said that though clearly one might move from positing a designer at life’s origins to positing further “meddling” by the designer at other points in the history of life-which strikes me as one reason why theistic evolutionists choose not to consider origin of life related issues as a philosophical pointer to God-an ID perspective focused on the origin of life logically need not extend to a critique of evolutionary mechanisms.
Of course, as Miller’s book demonstrates, the ID “movement” as spearheaded by the Discovery Institute IS being used to attack darwinian evolutionary mechanisms and methodological naturalism, so Miller had good reason to focus in on the DI brand of ID. Even so, Miller’s account is dated and/or incomplete in some respects, so one should not assume that Miller’s book provides a sufficient examination of the Discovery Institute style of ID he critiques, or even an adequate picture of what types of intellectual product the DI is willing to promote. For instance, though Miller strongly identified ID with Behe’s irreducible complexity, as Stephen Meyer’s Signature In The Cell demonstrates, the DI started featuring origin of life related arguments for design-cast, of course, as “scientific” propositions- much more prominently shortly after Miller released this book. Were Miller to write Only A Theory today, it is hard to see how he could ignore origin of life related ID claims made by the DI, given his interest in defending methodological naturalism in science and given how the notion of ID at the origin of life often serves as a beachhead for attacks on evolutionary theory. It is also difficult to see how Miller might dismiss these claims with the same evidentiary assurance with which he attacks Behe’s “irreducible complexity” arguments. Of course, Miller would still be able to play his defense of methodological naturalism trump card to refute any ID claim to scientific legitimacy, but I don’t think he would be able to structure his hypothetical new book in the rhetorically effective manner he has done here in the old, real one, where the defense of methodological naturalism in science is emphasized after the evidence based “debunking” of specific ID claims. After all, science seems to have no persuasive explanation regarding the origin of life. In general, it seems safe to say that it was probably easier to sway open minded readers sympathetic to the DI away from ID before Meyer published his first book. Also, though one does not learn this from Miller, several DI writers accept evolution understood as common descent with modification, and do not equate ID with repeated acts of special creation. In fact, it is my understanding that the DI affiliated Michael Denton not only accepts common descent with modification, but proposes a more “structuralist” as opposed to darwinian “functionalist” account of evolution that stays within the confines of methodological naturalism. Denton’s most recent book even got a positive review on the theistic evolution website BioLogos. Denton, at least, certainly seems to run counter to the narrative about the DI that Miller buys into and does his best to promote.
Only A Theory displays Miller as a staunch foe of the Discovery Institute and its works, but when dealing with the rather large popular audience that has proven receptive to ID, he tries to rise above an “us vs. them” mentality that is always easy to fall into, especially when dealing with a contentious topic like evolution. For instance, he dissents from the point of view of many fellow supporters of evolutionary science when he insists-rightly in my estimation-that religious fundamentalism is not enough to adequately account for the appeal of the ID movement. Basically, Miller thinks the modern scientific revolution, for all its accomplishments, created uneasiness and a sense of homelessness in the universe, and that historically, evolutionary theory has contributed to, and served as a poster child for, this disorientation. Miller thinks that much of the appeal of ID is that it promises to end the disorientation and uneasiness by restoring a sense of belonging. Though Miller is an indefatigable critic of ID, he does understand it to be responding to a felt need, and his elaboration of an “evolutionary cosmology” is intended as a partial antidote to the modern distress that has helped fuel the rise of ID.
Regarding this evolutionary cosmology, Miller says
“We have reached a point in science where the very phenomena that used to make us feel small-the vastness of the universe, our brief existence in time’s long history, our apparent irrelevance to nature-can now be understood in a way that makes us the centerpiece of existence. We know that our very presence demands a universe of this size and age and that only a precise mix of fundamental constants could have brought all this about. We may indeed feel small when we contemplate the nighttime sky, but today we recognize that our very being requires that exactly such a universe be spread out before us in all its stirring beauty.
Life on earth is not a stranger to this universe, not a curious exception to its cold and heartless physical laws. Life is, rather its most remarkable feature, its glory, maybe even its purpose. Life is built upon the physics and chemistry of matter itself. The reality is that we live in a universe in which the possibility for life is contingent upon the laws of nature and as such is woven into the very fabric of existence. By any standard we live in a universe that is simply brimming with evolutionary possibilities.” (p. 133-34)
Moreover, utilizing the work of Simon Conway-Morris, Miller claims that “it’s perfectly reasonable to maintain that evolution as we know and understand it was almost certain to produce a species like ours under conditions that prevail on Planet Earth.” (p. 153)
This evolutionary cosmology perspective is intended as an antidote for existential homelessness, and has, from Miller’s perspective, other anticipated benefits besides. I have to say that reading Miller-especially concerning evolutionary cosmology-made me think I was in the presence of a high priest. And no, I am not talking about the fact that Miller is a theistic evolutionist. His evolutionary cosmology perspective is articulated in such a way as to appeal to believer and non-believer alike. Rather, he seemed to be acting like a high priest of evolution. His book promulgates an evolutionary “orthodoxy” that does not acknowledge, even if only to rebut, several philosophical arguments for ID relating to the origins of life that work against his evolutionary cosmology, or scientific skepticism concerning the extent of the creative power of darwinian mechanisms, skepticism not limited to but certainly including the darwinian account of distinctly human faculties. And like a priest, he thinks his doctrine can serve to fortify and bring healing to others. I am reminded again of the aforementioned p 110 quote: “The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it is master of past and present, and that it ties each into a seamless fabric of science and of existence.” Miller’s forays into evolutionary cosmology demonstrate just how profound his commitment to the notion expressed in that sentence really is.
Though I am not really looking for a priest, as far as evolutionary high priests go, I much prefer Miller to someone like Dawkins, whose evolutionary perspective goes beyond anti-creationism to embrace anti-theism. But from my point of view, one significant problem with Miller’s book is that he fails to take the influence of thinkers like Dawkins as seriously as he should. For instance, Miller laments the fact that certain “extremists” on both sides of an escalating conflict manifest in struggles over evolution act as if faith were incompatible with science. However, though he elaborates on and hammers home the point that theism need not entail biblical literalism, Miller mentions but does not much dwell on the fact that some champions of evolution (like Dawkins) employ evolutionary science as a weapon against theism. Were Miller to focus his sustained criticism on this trend, this defender of methodological naturalism could insist loudly that when science is used as a tool to wage war against theism, this is just as much a violation of methodological naturalism as is the attempt to give ID scientific status, because methodological naturalism both legitimates and delimits science’s proper sphere of authority. Science that ambitiously oversteps its proper limits becomes scientism. In fact, Francis Collins, who, like Miller, certainly knows the history of the ID movement and its links with earlier forms of creationism, nevertheless said that one could profitably view the ID movement as the rebellious love child of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, meaning that the aggressive, anti-theistic scientism/new atheism represented by thinkers like Dawkins was bound to provoke in reaction an attempt to seek God in science. I think there is some truth to this, and would also say that the Darwin-wielding new atheism is likely responsible for more popular support for ID than any sense of existential homelessness brought about by modern science, though I do not deny that Miller may be on to something with this idea. (It also seems plain to me that the reason so many people associate evolution with left wing politics-which strikes Miller as something of a mystery-has to do with the visibility and aggressiveness of the Darwin-utilizing new atheists. Certainly conservatism, though it makes room for unbelievers, is not the natural political home for those openly hostile to religion, whereas the Left is.)
At any rate, and not to diminish legitimate concerns, at first blush there seems to me something inordinate about Miller aiming so much firepower against the rather marginal Discovery Institute and the temporary capture of a handful of school boards by pro-ID forces. His book raises an alarmist cry against a potential catastrophe if ID is able to redefine science by including the supernatural, while not saying very much regarding the anti-theistic scientism that already has a secure presence and respectability in the universities, and which helps fuel the ID backlash such as it is. But perhaps this is unfair to Miller. Collins, who stressed the new atheism/ID connection, admired Only A Theory and felt it was a book that needed to be written. And since a theistic evolutionist like Miller probably makes for a more effective critic of ID than an atheist would, so too a hard-hitting, extended critique of Dawkins’s anti-theistic scientism would likely change more minds if it came from the pen of a non-believer. So, it can be argued that by writing Only A Theory Miller merely stepped into a role he was well suited for, and shouldn’t be criticized for simply following through. Even so, though some people who think that a healthy methodological naturalism serves the best interest of both science and faith might consider it necessary to further marginalize an already intellectually marginalized band of Discovery Institute types, I think they would be deluding themselves if they further thought that DI style ID, or even “creationism” generally, was the biggest challenge methodological naturalism was facing.
Miller considers “irreducible complexity” the core idea of the ID movement, because it is intended to provide opponents of Darwin more ammunition than the so-called argument from incredulity by establishing positive proof of darwinism’s inadequacy. Miller takes issue with this alleged positive proof, and also with other arguments embraced by the ID crowd intended to cast doubt on darwinism’s creative power. Critiquing claims concerning such ID icons as the mousetrap and the bacterial flagellum, and utilizing recent genetic findings, computer modeling, various laboratory experiments, fossil evidence, and new supplementary trends in evolutionary thinking (such as facilitated development and evo/devo), Miller not only dismisses the irreducible complexity argument, he asserts that the argument from incredulity-which he never considered a very strong critique of darwinism to begin with-has less force than ever before, because darwinism has greater scientific validation than ever before. Not content merely to critique specific ID claims, Miller states “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such it’s a literal dead end, and seems intended to get us to do just one thing: to step back from science and acknowledge the creative efforts of an unnamed power behind the mysteries of life.” (p. 87)
Miller’s book makes a strong case that darwinism is not a dying theory. Even so, by tending to conflate evolution and darwinism, and by focusing on what even Phillip Johnson acknowledges is an uneven struggle between darwinism and ID, the book might give the reader the misleading impression that though our understanding of darwinian evolution is being refined over time, the darwinian framework itself is beyond scientific criticism. For instance, Miller did not talk about self-organization theory, which, though it does not deny that darwinism plays an important role in evolution, holds that as of yet obscurely understood “laws of form” are necessary for adequately understanding the development of biological complexity, and that our understanding of evolution will alter significantly as we eventually come to better understand these laws. The mere existence of self organization theory (irrespective of whether or not it ever makes much meaningful progress) indicates that one need not be-as Miller seems to suggest-scientifically uninformed or a science denier to think that darwinism’s creative power might be somewhat overrated. Also, some recent trends (such as evo/devo) that are generally thought of as refinements to the darwinian conception of evolution are actually considered by some thinkers to work against it. (Jerry Fodor would be one such thinker.) Setting aside self-organization theory and the potential implications of trends like evo/devo, I’ll also add that Miller seems, to this lay reader at least, overly enamored with “Darwin’s great idea” when, in the course of comparing darwinism favorably to ID, he says “the beauty of evolutionary theory is that it is master of past and present, and that it ties each into a seamless fabric of science and of existence.” (p.110) Isn’t it wishful thinking to assume any one scientific theory could ever do all that?
Though Miller thinks ID makes many shoddy claims that do not withstand scientific scrutiny, and that it is ultimately a dead end, ID’s most fundamental problem from Miller’s perspective as an adherent of methodological naturalism is that its attempted renovation of science to include the supernatural is intrinsically non-scientific. Interestingly enough, Miller only emphasizes a defense of methodological naturalism in science towards the end of his book, after first exploring various ID claims and finding them meritless. This strikes me as a sound rhetorical strategy for winning over readers to his point of view, since most open minded readers initially sympathetic to an ID perspective would probably not care whether or not ID fit within the framework of methodological naturalism so long as they considered ID claims to be true.
However, whatever one ultimately happens to think regarding the truth status of ID, it seems clear that Miller’s presentation of ID is less informative than it could have been. This can be demonstrated by considering the example of the late Antony Flew, a British philosopher who adhered to the notion of methodological naturalism in science, and who articulated a philosophical, as distinct from scientific, approach to ID that was nevertheless crucially informed by scientific work in an area of study generally ignored by Miller. Flew, who moved from atheism to deism near the end of his life, considered recent work on the origin of life to point to the activity of a creative Intelligence. Said Flew: “The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’?” Flew’s self-styled “pilgrimage of reason” led him to the conclusion that this question never could be satisfactorily answered, and this was crucial for his turn to deism. Flew’s well publicized change of mind,which happened in the years leading up to Miller’s book, does not conveniently fit into Miller’s portrayal of ID. Flew had no religious agenda, for instance, and he was not seeking to redefine science. Also, he made philosophically based arguments for ID relating to the origin of life that Miller’s book generally do not address. (Though Miller is silent concerning the emergence of self replication capabilities and coded chemistry, he does volunteer that the purpose, or final cause of organisms is survival. (p.23) However, unlike Flew, who wondered how a universe of mindless matter could produce beings with intrinsic ends, Miller proceeds as if there is nothing really to wonder about, because although there used to be a widely held, fundamental distinction made between life and non-life, this distinction is of mere historical interest today since it is now a scientific commonplace to reduce life to a chemical and physical phenomenon. As Miller proclaims: “the capacity for life is built into matter.” (p.119). Apparently Miller considers this scientific commonplace the obvious final word on the subject, rather than as a somewhat counterintuitive proposition that could serve as an invitation to further thinking.) It should also be said that though clearly one might move from positing a designer at life’s origins to positing further “meddling” by the designer at other points in the history of life-which strikes me as one reason why theistic evolutionists choose not to consider origin of life related issues as a philosophical pointer to God-an ID perspective focused on the origin of life logically need not extend to a critique of evolutionary mechanisms.
Of course, as Miller’s book demonstrates, the ID “movement” as spearheaded by the Discovery Institute IS being used to attack darwinian evolutionary mechanisms and methodological naturalism, so Miller had good reason to focus in on the DI brand of ID. Even so, Miller’s account is dated and/or incomplete in some respects, so one should not assume that Miller’s book provides a sufficient examination of the Discovery Institute style of ID he critiques, or even an adequate picture of what types of intellectual product the DI is willing to promote. For instance, though Miller strongly identified ID with Behe’s irreducible complexity, as Stephen Meyer’s Signature In The Cell demonstrates, the DI started featuring origin of life related arguments for design-cast, of course, as “scientific” propositions- much more prominently shortly after Miller released this book. Were Miller to write Only A Theory today, it is hard to see how he could ignore origin of life related ID claims made by the DI, given his interest in defending methodological naturalism in science and given how the notion of ID at the origin of life often serves as a beachhead for attacks on evolutionary theory. It is also difficult to see how Miller might dismiss these claims with the same evidentiary assurance with which he attacks Behe’s “irreducible complexity” arguments. Of course, Miller would still be able to play his defense of methodological naturalism trump card to refute any ID claim to scientific legitimacy, but I don’t think he would be able to structure his hypothetical new book in the rhetorically effective manner he has done here in the old, real one, where the defense of methodological naturalism in science is emphasized after the evidence based “debunking” of specific ID claims. After all, science seems to have no persuasive explanation regarding the origin of life. In general, it seems safe to say that it was probably easier to sway open minded readers sympathetic to the DI away from ID before Meyer published his first book. Also, though one does not learn this from Miller, several DI writers accept evolution understood as common descent with modification, and do not equate ID with repeated acts of special creation. In fact, it is my understanding that the DI affiliated Michael Denton not only accepts common descent with modification, but proposes a more “structuralist” as opposed to darwinian “functionalist” account of evolution that stays within the confines of methodological naturalism. Denton’s most recent book even got a positive review on the theistic evolution website BioLogos. Denton, at least, certainly seems to run counter to the narrative about the DI that Miller buys into and does his best to promote.
Only A Theory displays Miller as a staunch foe of the Discovery Institute and its works, but when dealing with the rather large popular audience that has proven receptive to ID, he tries to rise above an “us vs. them” mentality that is always easy to fall into, especially when dealing with a contentious topic like evolution. For instance, he dissents from the point of view of many fellow supporters of evolutionary science when he insists-rightly in my estimation-that religious fundamentalism is not enough to adequately account for the appeal of the ID movement. Basically, Miller thinks the modern scientific revolution, for all its accomplishments, created uneasiness and a sense of homelessness in the universe, and that historically, evolutionary theory has contributed to, and served as a poster child for, this disorientation. Miller thinks that much of the appeal of ID is that it promises to end the disorientation and uneasiness by restoring a sense of belonging. Though Miller is an indefatigable critic of ID, he does understand it to be responding to a felt need, and his elaboration of an “evolutionary cosmology” is intended as a partial antidote to the modern distress that has helped fuel the rise of ID.
Regarding this evolutionary cosmology, Miller says
“We have reached a point in science where the very phenomena that used to make us feel small-the vastness of the universe, our brief existence in time’s long history, our apparent irrelevance to nature-can now be understood in a way that makes us the centerpiece of existence. We know that our very presence demands a universe of this size and age and that only a precise mix of fundamental constants could have brought all this about. We may indeed feel small when we contemplate the nighttime sky, but today we recognize that our very being requires that exactly such a universe be spread out before us in all its stirring beauty.
Life on earth is not a stranger to this universe, not a curious exception to its cold and heartless physical laws. Life is, rather its most remarkable feature, its glory, maybe even its purpose. Life is built upon the physics and chemistry of matter itself. The reality is that we live in a universe in which the possibility for life is contingent upon the laws of nature and as such is woven into the very fabric of existence. By any standard we live in a universe that is simply brimming with evolutionary possibilities.” (p. 133-34)
Moreover, utilizing the work of Simon Conway-Morris, Miller claims that “it’s perfectly reasonable to maintain that evolution as we know and understand it was almost certain to produce a species like ours under conditions that prevail on Planet Earth.” (p. 153)
This evolutionary cosmology perspective is intended as an antidote for existential homelessness, and has, from Miller’s perspective, other anticipated benefits besides. I have to say that reading Miller-especially concerning evolutionary cosmology-made me think I was in the presence of a high priest. And no, I am not talking about the fact that Miller is a theistic evolutionist. His evolutionary cosmology perspective is articulated in such a way as to appeal to believer and non-believer alike. Rather, he seemed to be acting like a high priest of evolution. His book promulgates an evolutionary “orthodoxy” that does not acknowledge, even if only to rebut, several philosophical arguments for ID relating to the origins of life that work against his evolutionary cosmology, or scientific skepticism concerning the extent of the creative power of darwinian mechanisms, skepticism not limited to but certainly including the darwinian account of distinctly human faculties. And like a priest, he thinks his doctrine can serve to fortify and bring healing to others. I am reminded again of the aforementioned p 110 quote: “The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it is master of past and present, and that it ties each into a seamless fabric of science and of existence.” Miller’s forays into evolutionary cosmology demonstrate just how profound his commitment to the notion expressed in that sentence really is.
Though I am not really looking for a priest, as far as evolutionary high priests go, I much prefer Miller to someone like Dawkins, whose evolutionary perspective goes beyond anti-creationism to embrace anti-theism. But from my point of view, one significant problem with Miller’s book is that he fails to take the influence of thinkers like Dawkins as seriously as he should. For instance, Miller laments the fact that certain “extremists” on both sides of an escalating conflict manifest in struggles over evolution act as if faith were incompatible with science. However, though he elaborates on and hammers home the point that theism need not entail biblical literalism, Miller mentions but does not much dwell on the fact that some champions of evolution (like Dawkins) employ evolutionary science as a weapon against theism. Were Miller to focus his sustained criticism on this trend, this defender of methodological naturalism could insist loudly that when science is used as a tool to wage war against theism, this is just as much a violation of methodological naturalism as is the attempt to give ID scientific status, because methodological naturalism both legitimates and delimits science’s proper sphere of authority. Science that ambitiously oversteps its proper limits becomes scientism. In fact, Francis Collins, who, like Miller, certainly knows the history of the ID movement and its links with earlier forms of creationism, nevertheless said that one could profitably view the ID movement as the rebellious love child of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, meaning that the aggressive, anti-theistic scientism/new atheism represented by thinkers like Dawkins was bound to provoke in reaction an attempt to seek God in science. I think there is some truth to this, and would also say that the Darwin-wielding new atheism is likely responsible for more popular support for ID than any sense of existential homelessness brought about by modern science, though I do not deny that Miller may be on to something with this idea. (It also seems plain to me that the reason so many people associate evolution with left wing politics-which strikes Miller as something of a mystery-has to do with the visibility and aggressiveness of the Darwin-utilizing new atheists. Certainly conservatism, though it makes room for unbelievers, is not the natural political home for those openly hostile to religion, whereas the Left is.)
At any rate, and not to diminish legitimate concerns, at first blush there seems to me something inordinate about Miller aiming so much firepower against the rather marginal Discovery Institute and the temporary capture of a handful of school boards by pro-ID forces. His book raises an alarmist cry against a potential catastrophe if ID is able to redefine science by including the supernatural, while not saying very much regarding the anti-theistic scientism that already has a secure presence and respectability in the universities, and which helps fuel the ID backlash such as it is. But perhaps this is unfair to Miller. Collins, who stressed the new atheism/ID connection, admired Only A Theory and felt it was a book that needed to be written. And since a theistic evolutionist like Miller probably makes for a more effective critic of ID than an atheist would, so too a hard-hitting, extended critique of Dawkins’s anti-theistic scientism would likely change more minds if it came from the pen of a non-believer. So, it can be argued that by writing Only A Theory Miller merely stepped into a role he was well suited for, and shouldn’t be criticized for simply following through. Even so, though some people who think that a healthy methodological naturalism serves the best interest of both science and faith might consider it necessary to further marginalize an already intellectually marginalized band of Discovery Institute types, I think they would be deluding themselves if they further thought that DI style ID, or even “creationism” generally, was the biggest challenge methodological naturalism was facing.
July 8, 2009
You've probably heard the joke about how you know the world's going through a strange time when the best golfer is black and the best rapper is white, but what about when the best defender of evolution, and harshest critic of intelligent design, is Roman Catholic? Even PZ Myers, the "fifth horseman of the apocalypse," had to concede as much:
(drumroll)
...absolutely nothing! Wow! It's like the incredible dissapearing evidence or something.
I won't do Miller's writing a disservice by rehashing his arguments here, suffice to say that you should read the book. He takes every ID-approved argument and sends it to the cleaners, most notably irreducible complexity, whether of blood clotting, bacterial rotifers, or mousetraps.
Of course, any scientist, be it Myers, Richard Dawkins (who was beaten in the race to get to use this book's title for his forthcoming book, and opted instead for The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution ; don't miss it), Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, or anyone of their ilk, could do that, and do it well. What Miller does as a religious scientist is show that evolution and God aren't necessarily at odds, and that, in fact, a proper understanding of the natural world and how it works is entrenched within the Christian tradition as envisioned by Augustine. Again, I'm not going to rehash, but the book is actually quite convincing. I'm not sure that most readers would realize what a feat this is. Most attempts at reconciliation of faith and science end in tears, or, worse, laughs. Miller's ends only in careful contemplation of issues that, otherwise, many readers would have closed their mind to long ago.
In short, Miller's book can be described with that oh-so-rare combination of adjectives: good and timely. That he has co-written many textbooks currently in use in high schools across the United States is, to me (and I hope even to forerunners of the "New Atheists") a glimmer of hope.
Miller is a fine writer who sharply addresses the details of the arguments about intelligent design creationism. When tackling old chestnuts such as the 'only a theory' complaint, or Michael Behe's argument for a maximum limit for the number of genetic mutations, or William Dembski's rehash of William Paley's watchmaker argument for complexity, Miller discusses the contemporary biological explanations while refuting the errors.Indeed, Michael Behe is not so much the villain of the book, which centers on the 2005 Dover evolution trials, as he is its comic relief; I'm willing to wager that never has the major proponent of one side of a debate in science been portrayed as being so comprehensively lost and stupid by his counterpart on the other side. He's left with no leg to stand on, his ideas and claims shown comprehsively in a court of law to be founded on...
(drumroll)
...absolutely nothing! Wow! It's like the incredible dissapearing evidence or something.
I won't do Miller's writing a disservice by rehashing his arguments here, suffice to say that you should read the book. He takes every ID-approved argument and sends it to the cleaners, most notably irreducible complexity, whether of blood clotting, bacterial rotifers, or mousetraps.
Of course, any scientist, be it Myers, Richard Dawkins (who was beaten in the race to get to use this book's title for his forthcoming book, and opted instead for The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution ; don't miss it), Carl Zimmer, Neil Shubin, or anyone of their ilk, could do that, and do it well. What Miller does as a religious scientist is show that evolution and God aren't necessarily at odds, and that, in fact, a proper understanding of the natural world and how it works is entrenched within the Christian tradition as envisioned by Augustine. Again, I'm not going to rehash, but the book is actually quite convincing. I'm not sure that most readers would realize what a feat this is. Most attempts at reconciliation of faith and science end in tears, or, worse, laughs. Miller's ends only in careful contemplation of issues that, otherwise, many readers would have closed their mind to long ago.
In short, Miller's book can be described with that oh-so-rare combination of adjectives: good and timely. That he has co-written many textbooks currently in use in high schools across the United States is, to me (and I hope even to forerunners of the "New Atheists") a glimmer of hope.
June 25, 2011
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Kenneth R. Miller
Only a Theory by Kenneth R. Miller is an inspiring book that focuses on the merits of science and in particular evolution over the threat by the religious right's pseudoscience called Intelligent Design ID. The "battle" that Professor Miller alludes to in his title, is the battle that threatens the American character of being practical, pragmatic, and based on what you are able to do, not who you are. The book is composed of the following eight chapters: 1. Only a Theory, 2. Eden's Draftsmen, 3. Embracing Design, 4. Darwin's Genome, 5. Life's a Grand Design, 6. The World that Knew We Were Coming, 7. Closing the American Scientific Mind, and 8. Devil in the Details.
Positives:
1. Unlike most books about evolution this one exudes passion and love of science.
2. Well written, eloquent book that is a treat to read.
3. Accessible to the masses.
4. Chapter 4, Darwin's Genome is on its own worth the price of the book. It may have the most compelling and succinct arguments in defense of evolution. The story of chromosome #2 is forever imbedded in my brain.
5. Does a wonderful job of exposing ID's true intentions and threat that it poses.
6. Great persuasive style of writing not typical of most scientific books.
7. Great examples of evolution.
8. Destroys this notion that we have been designed with great ease and eloquence.
9. A different angle on the anthropic principle.
10. "Nature works as tinkerer with available materials, not as an engineer does by design." Clear and concise. Many great quotable phrases.
11. Absolutely shames ID proponents like Behe and Dembski. The Discovery Institute (backer of ID) has not produced a single scientific research paper that supports intelligent design. Exposes ID for what it is, a rightwing religious movement attempting to derail Darwinism and anything that from their perspective threatens religion.
12. Every single main example of irreducible complexity was debunked!
13. There is a clear and present danger that threatens science's autonomy.
14. Links work like a charm.
15. A page turning, enjoyable read.
Negatives:
1. The weakest points in the book is the philosophical aspects of it. I felt Miller's defense of the purpose of life was fluff.
2. Not as much substance as other evolutionary books.
3. Mr. Miller is Catholic yet comes across as a deist. He believes in design but at a non-personal level.
4. The title includes soul, as far as I know there is no compelling evidence for the existence of souls let alone how they can possibly work.
In summary, Professor Miller writes a very solid persuasive book that debunks ID. Personally, I enjoyed this book. I felt like I was climbing a mountain and when I reached the top I discovered these great gold nuggets of knowledge. The explanation of Chromosome #2 was the biggest nugget of gold, after that I was more than happy with my discoveries and proceeded to go down the mountain. The book is an enjoyable and worthwhile read. Other recommendations include: " Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne, "Your Inner Fish..." by Neil Shubin, "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B. Carroll, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer, "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr, "Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" by Nick Lane, "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" by Daniel J. Fairbanks and "The Greatest Show on Earth" by the great Richard Dawkins.
Only a Theory by Kenneth R. Miller is an inspiring book that focuses on the merits of science and in particular evolution over the threat by the religious right's pseudoscience called Intelligent Design ID. The "battle" that Professor Miller alludes to in his title, is the battle that threatens the American character of being practical, pragmatic, and based on what you are able to do, not who you are. The book is composed of the following eight chapters: 1. Only a Theory, 2. Eden's Draftsmen, 3. Embracing Design, 4. Darwin's Genome, 5. Life's a Grand Design, 6. The World that Knew We Were Coming, 7. Closing the American Scientific Mind, and 8. Devil in the Details.
Positives:
1. Unlike most books about evolution this one exudes passion and love of science.
2. Well written, eloquent book that is a treat to read.
3. Accessible to the masses.
4. Chapter 4, Darwin's Genome is on its own worth the price of the book. It may have the most compelling and succinct arguments in defense of evolution. The story of chromosome #2 is forever imbedded in my brain.
5. Does a wonderful job of exposing ID's true intentions and threat that it poses.
6. Great persuasive style of writing not typical of most scientific books.
7. Great examples of evolution.
8. Destroys this notion that we have been designed with great ease and eloquence.
9. A different angle on the anthropic principle.
10. "Nature works as tinkerer with available materials, not as an engineer does by design." Clear and concise. Many great quotable phrases.
11. Absolutely shames ID proponents like Behe and Dembski. The Discovery Institute (backer of ID) has not produced a single scientific research paper that supports intelligent design. Exposes ID for what it is, a rightwing religious movement attempting to derail Darwinism and anything that from their perspective threatens religion.
12. Every single main example of irreducible complexity was debunked!
13. There is a clear and present danger that threatens science's autonomy.
14. Links work like a charm.
15. A page turning, enjoyable read.
Negatives:
1. The weakest points in the book is the philosophical aspects of it. I felt Miller's defense of the purpose of life was fluff.
2. Not as much substance as other evolutionary books.
3. Mr. Miller is Catholic yet comes across as a deist. He believes in design but at a non-personal level.
4. The title includes soul, as far as I know there is no compelling evidence for the existence of souls let alone how they can possibly work.
In summary, Professor Miller writes a very solid persuasive book that debunks ID. Personally, I enjoyed this book. I felt like I was climbing a mountain and when I reached the top I discovered these great gold nuggets of knowledge. The explanation of Chromosome #2 was the biggest nugget of gold, after that I was more than happy with my discoveries and proceeded to go down the mountain. The book is an enjoyable and worthwhile read. Other recommendations include: " Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne, "Your Inner Fish..." by Neil Shubin, "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B. Carroll, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer, "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr, "Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution" by Nick Lane, "Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" by Daniel J. Fairbanks and "The Greatest Show on Earth" by the great Richard Dawkins.
September 10, 2008
This book is the latest work by biologist Kenneth Miller, who is arguably the most effective writer in finding a reasonable middle ground between science and religion. Building on his earlier book "Finding Darwin's God", Miller again analyzes some of the recently advanced arguments by the "creation science" and "intelligent design" communities, and once again finds them deeply flawed. Miller points out how the recent explosion in DNA data, across a wide range of species including humans, provides incontrovertible proof of the branching tree of evolution. One item he mentions is how humans, unlike most other animals, have lost the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. Curiously, we have virtually all of the biochemical machinery to produce Vitamin C, but it is invalidated by a mutation in a key final step. Miller asks what "Designer" would deliberately construct human biology with such a significant deficiency? What's more, this "Designer" is a plagiarist, because this same error has been copied into the DNA of several other primates. Miller also points out how that recent DNA studies have dramatically confirmed the long-conjectured fact that human chromosome 2 is actually the fusion of two primate chromosomes. Recently, the exact spot of fusion has been unambiguously identified. Many other specific and convincing examples are given.
February 21, 2009
An important, timely must read for those of us whose brains still work; a necessary read for those of us whose brains don’t. The good Dr. Miller, expanding on his brilliant dismantling of the Intelligent Design movement as an expert witness during the 2005 Dover trial, systematically debunks all of ID’s claims with unparalleled clarity. He establishes without question why intelligent design fails as science, amounting to nothing more than repackaged creationism. But the real value of this book is his commentary on the lasting, potentially dangerous, social implications of American hostility towards and disregard of evolution – the fundamental, unifying core of the whole of biology. I needed this book. I look at this deplorable fact with disgust, animosity, frustration. Miller, however, is optimistic. That as scientists, now is the time to teach, to lead; to really illustrate to all the inherent beauty that is evolution.
March 17, 2009
Miller's examination of the intelligent design (ID) movement is accurate, thorough, and eloquent. He hits the nail right on the head again and again, exposing the falseness of ID's claims, the subtlety of its strategies (including the very name of the movement), and the dangers it poses to scientific understanding and inquiry in our society. One of the most wonderful things about the book, to me, is that Miller is both an accomplished scientist and a believing Christian, demonstrating how science and religion can be not only compatible but mutually enriching. I may not necessarily agree with every one of Miller's conclusions, but I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment of intelligent design. This is a must-read for anyone deeply interested in the debate over evolution in the US in general, and in the intelligent design movement specifically.
September 1, 2008
One of the great untold stories in our modern times is the growth of anti-intellectualism in this country. One hint of that is the continual replaying of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Another is the continual agitation of the Religious Right to try to discredit Evolution. They first tried to do it with Creationism; then with Intelligent Design. Both have been roundly discredited. Now the push is to try to redefine what a (Scientific) Theory is to get ID placed in the curriculum and considered seriously. This is one of THE Scarier movements on the polical scene right now. Only a Theory is a wonderfull and thoughtfull response.
February 1, 2009
Kenneth Miller is my hero. He has a knack for presenting concepts in an interesting and engaging way, without over-simplifying to the point of being incorrect. In this book, he makes a (to my mind) good-faith effort to analyze the "scientific" evidence for creationism (or, more accurately, it's modern-day alias, intelligent design). By exploring the scientific implications of both evolutionary biology and intelligent design, he highlights the fundamental differences between the two--namely, that the one expands our knowledge and improves our understanding of the world, while the other closes minds and leads to a philosophy of "well, I don't understand it, so I'll just give up."
June 5, 2010
A perceptive description of the conflict between scientific evolution and intelligent design, giving evidence why intelligent design is a scientific dead end, specific evidence against its claims of fatal flaws in the Darwinian model, and an analysis of the political and religious objectives of those seeking to relativize science so that its findings are not privileged over religious claims about creation, evolution, evidence, and authority. Written by a cell biologist and textbook author who been a witness in several school-board trials disputing evolution around the nation, the book is well worth reading.
November 4, 2008
Really well laid out arguments. By taking intelligent design theory seriously, Kenneth Miller demonstrates unequivocally that it falls apart under the weakest of scrutiny (though the author does continue even after the theory falls apart). He attempts to evaluate the theory as all scientific theories are evaluated, and intelligent design doesn't even hold up to being able to make predictions based on the theory--one of the basic tenets of formal theories.
By referring back to the 2005 Pennsylvania trial, the author places the theories in the urgent context of a dramatic story.
By referring back to the 2005 Pennsylvania trial, the author places the theories in the urgent context of a dramatic story.
December 1, 2008
A good conversational style, written by one of the primary speakers for the defense at the Dover, PA trials on teaching ID in science classes. Miller does a reasonable job of taking a fair look at ID as an scientific theory (which it is not really, because it cannot be tested), and does a excellent job of describing some obvious errors in ID rhetoric. But he misses the mark, in my opinion, by not defending the fact that those who understand biological evolution are not all de facto athiests, as ID proponents like to claim. Worthwhile reading if you are interested in this controversy.
June 15, 2011
So far, VERY interesting and well written. It presents opposing viewpoints in an honest and sincere manner. Despite inherent bias any time you argue for something, the author is extremely fair in conveying the arguments for both sides. He has the patience to write entire chapters that detail each opposing argument (without saying why he thinks the arguments fail until several chapters later AND without making fun of their perspective). The fairness is refreshing.
August 23, 2019
This was a thoughtful and thorough look at evolution that has enhanced my own personal faith. While it’s clinical applications are well taught, the morality is what shines most. The author has undoubtedly forgotten more about evolution than I could hope to learn, yet the concepts are accessible to because his language is both humble and responsible. It was at times difficult to reconcile on a personal level, but an ultimately surprising and fascinating read.
March 20, 2020
In this book Miller explores the continued battle between proponents of creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution. He works through the arguments quite well using the most used examples from the intelligent design camp and relating several of the court cases about these issues. I find his approach and discussion very useful for possible encounters with others who do not quite understand this situation and the scientific short comings of intelligent design, despite the valuable aspects of morality and spirituality that many wan to protect. The book includes notes by chapter and an index. I highly recommend the book.
Despite the value of this book, I wonder about two things. First, intelligent design mostly poses that evolution cannot explain systems which are irreducibly complex -- there are several examples that they like to use, such as the clotting factors in blood. While Miller dispenses with this problem easily enough, I am surprised no one suggests the reduction we see quite clearly in going from different levels, say by size. We do this all the time in ecology. To give an example: blood clotting factors are obviously chemical in nature, which are made up of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, and so forth. So, on many levels, smaller things come together for a larger whole and along with it, at least some different properties. This is not quite the issue being raised but I think it is related.
The other regards the idea of the Law of Least Action. Typically in science there are two kinds of causation: final cause (like intelligent design or cause with a purpose) and mechanistic (or efficient cause. Darwin's evolution and most of current science is built on mechanistic causation. The Law of Least Action is a physical law that fits the final causation form. Apparently, it was originally rejected but gained some ground when Lagrange used it to re-interpret Newton (in 1788) and then later Hamilton put this idea into a formal law -- Hamilton's Law. This idea or law has appeared in various other forms in physics. I do not know all the details (but will be investigating this soon) but it appears that this Law of Least Action and the efficient cause both produce equations for the same phenomena which describe the same state and give the same predictions. Which poses the question of which view to chooses -- looks like a toss up according to Planck). (I am paraphrasing this from a short essay by Jim Holt, "The Law of Least Action.") I mention this not to discount Miller's presentation (which I think is spot on) but to say despite the actual argument from the intelligent design camp, there may be more to this challenge and it may be yet in another very different direction.
Despite the value of this book, I wonder about two things. First, intelligent design mostly poses that evolution cannot explain systems which are irreducibly complex -- there are several examples that they like to use, such as the clotting factors in blood. While Miller dispenses with this problem easily enough, I am surprised no one suggests the reduction we see quite clearly in going from different levels, say by size. We do this all the time in ecology. To give an example: blood clotting factors are obviously chemical in nature, which are made up of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, and so forth. So, on many levels, smaller things come together for a larger whole and along with it, at least some different properties. This is not quite the issue being raised but I think it is related.
The other regards the idea of the Law of Least Action. Typically in science there are two kinds of causation: final cause (like intelligent design or cause with a purpose) and mechanistic (or efficient cause. Darwin's evolution and most of current science is built on mechanistic causation. The Law of Least Action is a physical law that fits the final causation form. Apparently, it was originally rejected but gained some ground when Lagrange used it to re-interpret Newton (in 1788) and then later Hamilton put this idea into a formal law -- Hamilton's Law. This idea or law has appeared in various other forms in physics. I do not know all the details (but will be investigating this soon) but it appears that this Law of Least Action and the efficient cause both produce equations for the same phenomena which describe the same state and give the same predictions. Which poses the question of which view to chooses -- looks like a toss up according to Planck). (I am paraphrasing this from a short essay by Jim Holt, "The Law of Least Action.") I mention this not to discount Miller's presentation (which I think is spot on) but to say despite the actual argument from the intelligent design camp, there may be more to this challenge and it may be yet in another very different direction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews