Customer Reviews

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.)

5 star:		(76)
4 star:		(44)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This book is a "must read" for anyone interested in a thoughtful analysis both of the most popular approaches for defending a belief in creation and also for those that oppose a belief in creation in light of the findings of modern science. Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and a committed Christian (although the book stresses the shared convictions of the major Western religions, rather than adopting a sectarian approach).

Miller considers first the arguments of young-earth creationists (Whitcome and Morris, Duane Gish, et al.) and answers these with an avalanche of scientific evidence. He then examines in two chapters the claims of old-earth creationists, especially Philip Johnson (who stresses a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record) and Michael Behe (who identifies what he considers are "irreducably complex" biochemical machines in the cell). In his careful analysis of these views, Miller helps the reader appreciate how both approaches are, in effect, misguided attempts to defend creation with a "God of the gaps." Each offers examples which, the authors hope, defy explanation by modern science. This (temporary) inability of modern science is then taken as evidence in support of the work of the Creator at that point. Miller shows the consistent failure of this mode of argumentation in the past and cites evidence published since the appearance of Johnson's and Behe's writings, which, unfortunately for them, fills in their hoped-for gaps.

One of the greatest dangers of a God of the gaps argument, Miller notes, is that each time science succeeds in filling one of these alleged gaps its success is misconstrued by atheistic scientists as proof that God must not exist. Miller turns his attention in the second half of his book to a refutation of the equally deficient views against creation that have been advanced by atheistic scientists.

In the end Miller affirms the wisdom of resting one's faith in a God who is the God of the stuff in between the gaps - whose handiwork is best seen in facts and qualities of the universe which are well known to science, rather than in those which are as yet undiscovered. Although he strongly affirms evolution, natural law, and chance, he sees these as means which God used for accoplishing His creative intention and safeguarding the genuine freedom and independence of His Creation. Miller affirms that the existence of the universe is not self-explanatory. Although he recognizes that the convictions of faith cannot be proven absolutely, he considers faith in the Creator to be reasonable and supported by such evidences as the anthropic principle. He also favors the possibility that God may utilize quantum indeterminacy and chaos as subtle means for interacting with His creation.

As a person with an interest in evolutionary sciences, I was looking forward to see how Kenneth Miller tackled the question of rectifying the existence of God with the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Overall, he does an excellent job in summarizing the basic views of evolutionary theory and refutes in concise and convincing fashion, the viewpoints of young-earth creationists and intelligent design theory. Unlike most other books that deal with this topic, I could find no faults with his explanation of Darwinism, nor with the ample evidence from paleontology and biochemistry that he uses to support his views. He also addresses Michael Behe's arguments in "Darwin's Black Box" with a great deal of clarity. For his accurate analysis of evolutionary theory at work, his book deserves a special mention.

Kenneth Miller's philosophical arguments about why evolution is consistent with the existence of God is not quite as well argued, however. His opinion, in a nutshell, is that God provided the universe with the properties that made the eventual formation of intelligent life extremely likely. The mechanism of evolution made it probable that at least one species would become advanced enough to be able to recognize and have a relationship with a creator, and that evolution was essential in the development of "free will" that would make individuals have a choice in choosing or rejecting the creator. Of course there is no scientific evidence to support this, but Mr. Miller does raise some interesting points with this argument. However, it seems to me that this would be an unsatisfactory argument to someone who wishes to have an "active" God in their individual lives who can intervene on their behalf. In addition, Mr. Miller provides no viewpoints on why a Judeo-Christian God (as he believes in) would be the prime deity. Why not Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or any of the other major Eastern religions?

Overall, I think that Mr. Miller's book is definitely worth reading for his excellent summary of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. His religious arguments are not as well argued, but they certainly will make you think, regardless of your religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

In his book Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth R. Miller states that the reason most theists feel such animosity toward science is because scientists and naturalists continually attack them, claiming their "faith is a cop out" (to quote one reviewer below who seems to think that he somehow has access into my head and can make an objective judgement as to the state of my faith) and that theists shouldn't be hired for certain jobs because of their belief in God. If the negative attacks on Miller and his book here are to be taken seriously then it would seem that he hit the nail on the head. Having said this, I will admit that if you are atheist and cannot or will not consider the possibility that God exists, then you will not appreciate the closing chapters of this book. But that doesn't mean that you can't get somethingthing out of it, because I truly believe this is the best defense of Darwinism I have ever read. However, if you are theist and also appreciate the value of good science, then I believe you will find this book quite enlightening. Personally, I find it refreshing to know that there are scientists out there like Miller who understand that evolution, like physics, mathematics and the other sciences, is merely a tool that can be used to help us understand our world and the universe around us, and not an end all answer in of itself. In fact, I believe that anybody who honestly thinks that science is more than just a tool and is in itself the ultimate answer has turned it into nothing more than a religion. Evolution, though it may tell us how we got here, does little to cast light upon the human condition. Evolution cannot tell us, for instance, why we write poetry, or music, or carry out extravagant rituals in disposing of our dead, wage World Wars, fall in love and create complex languages. Nor can it explain the many other characteristics that are unique to humans, of all the animals that inhabit this planet. For these answers we must not only engage in sociology, anthropology, and the other soft sciences, but we must also consider philosophy, and yes, theology, in all its many manisfestations. Miller's Finding Darwin's God is brilliant for the fact that it does this very successfully. It puts forth a credible theory about human existence that adheres both to science and theology. I recommend it whole-heartedly.

Kenneth Miller has written the the best book to come to my attention on the narrow question of the relationship between evolution and the Christian belief in God as creator. As a professor of cell biology at Brown University, co-author of widely used biology textbooks for high school and college, an expert witness in court cases, public debater on the issues, and a sincere Catholic believer, he is well placed to carry out the task. The standard wisdom of both popular opinion and serious advocates of evolution and creationism is that the two views are radically opposed. In an ironic sense, as Miller observes in several places, this allows extremists in each camp to feed off each other. He writes to refute both.

Within mainstream science, evolution is an established fact far beyond any doubt, so much so that many scientists now refuse to participate in debates or serve as witnesses in legal cases because they feel that to do so lends credence to the argument that the theory is somehow up for grabs. It is not, and in his first two chapters Miller rehearses the overwhelming evidence for descent with modification. So far so good. But within his own scientific community, Miller admits that there is a broad, deep, and unwarranted assumption that his colleagues attach to evolutionary theory, namely, philosophic naturalism, materialism, or atheism. The unfortunate consequence of this radical bias is that Christians then react by trying to disprove evolution, a task that Miller sees as futile, irrational, and unfortunate for the cause of the Gospel.

In the heart of his book, Miller devotes successive chapters to reviewing and dismantling three anti-evolution views, from the most to the least hostile to science--the Institute for Creation Research and the young earth crowd as represented by Henry Morris; Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson and the intelligent design movement; and then biochemistry professor Michael Behe and the idea of irreducible complexity (chapters 3-5). He then asks what generates such passion and persistence on the part of sincere and intelligent people to try to disprove an established fact? Scientists themselves are largely to blame, he suggests, and in a subsequent chapter he exposes the unveiled disdain for religion that runs rampant in his guild. With generous doses from the writings of Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Provine, E.O. Wilson, Lewontin, and Futuyma, he documents this "reflexive hostility" toward religion. These samples of the scientific condescension toward religion are not exceptions or aberrations but rather a "fabric of disbelief." Scientism, the conviction that science is the only or best source of reliable knowledge is endemic among scientists. No wonder, he concedes, that religious people are deeply suspicious of a scientific theory that is otherwise beyond debate.

In his final three chapters (7-9) Miller turns to the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics to establish the unpredictability and openness of the natural world, which is to say that a closed, deterministic system of strict materialism is demonstrably false, and not only false with our present state of knowledge but false in principle. This by no means proves the existence of God, he admits. In a final move, he appeals to the so-called "anthropic principle" to support theism. Important scientists like Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson have endorsed this line of reasoning, and the vocal and rather specious appeal of Daniel Dennett to parallel universes might hint at just how powerful the anthropic principle is (or Francis Crick's appeal to panspermia, for that matter). In the end, the scientific method, so successful in its restricted domain, has little or nothing to say in the realm of philosophy, ethics, or the meaning of life, for those important matters, so rightly and deeply important to every human being, lie far outside the scope of the scientific method.

The first half of the book is an excellent summary of the major "mutually contradictory" anti-evolution arguments and why they fail (as if mutual contradiction isn't enough!). Here, and elsewhere in the literature, however, the refutation of intelligent design sometimes reads like evidence against design. This may mislead some readers to conclude that design is falsifiable, and thus legitimate as a scientific explanation. Despite creative language from Behe, Dembski, et al, design, and creation, remain complements, not alternatives to evolution. In an age when it has become fashionable to promote alternatives, Miller reminds us that there is but "one science." He makes it clear that the promoters of anti-evolution positions are ideologically driven, although he downplays the fact that America's poor science literacy gives them a market. Miller makes a strong case that science, including evolution, is more compatible with mainstream religions then with atheism. He then speculates on an interesting connection between God, free will in general, and the material world. Some readers may be led by the title to expect more compelling theological arguments, but as a scientist, Miller is careful not to dwell on what is not known. The recurring message is that anti-evolutionists needlessly put God into finite gaps that keep getting closed (e.g. cellular complexity), and overlook the infinite gaps which science may never be able to access. That is where personal faith can complement the science without replacing any of it. Minor dislikes aside, I thought the book to be excellent, and a refreshing "alternative" to the trendy "alternative science" books.

This book is aimed for the masses, specifically the religious who suspect, if not outright believe, that evolution is a threat to God's creation. "Darwin's God"--more appropriately, "Miller's God"--is an effort to hold on to an uncompromising view of evolution to a partially compromised view of a traditional Judeo-Christian God. The success is mixed, and Miller's argument will definitely leave many readers wondering what went wrong.

First, Kenneth Miller, as an educator and celluar biologist, makes an excellent summary of the case for evolution. If someone does not understand that case or has never really seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory added all together, here it is, neatly summarized and clearly explained.

On top of that, Miller assesses various creationist camps as old as Young Earth Creationists and as new as the Intelligent Design theorists in the news today. Miller's critique of these camps is articulate and damning; no creationist camp has solid evidence, as Miller shows, and Miller, as a Christian, has the extra leverage to tackle the theology presented by the groups in order to question their logic. By the middle of the book, then, you have a clear case for evolution, a clear case against creationism--but where is "Darwin's God" to be found?

For a book that touts a balance between evolution and creation, you are made to wait until chapter 8 (there are only nine chapters total). Did Miller fear he would lose his audience by showing his hand too soon? Or did he know his specific argument about how and why the biblical Creator and the scientific theory of evolution can co-exist was pretty frail?

Religious readers may find their version of God much too compromised once the big reveal is made. This God is very hands off in his "design" of nature, and though Miller gives room for a personal God who performs miracles and answers prayers, Miller argues that God purposefully limits that power in very subtle ways in order to preserve consistent natural laws and human freedom. This is the age-old problem with God once again: the more powerful He is, the less free we look, and the more freedom we have, the less powerful He must be. Something has to give, and Miller compromises God's knowledge and direct involvement in a way that will probably dissatisfy someone religious.

For the more scientifically minded and skeptical among readers (of which I include myself), Miller's argument flounders for the same reason so many religious arguments do: Why THIS God? Why YOUR God? And since when is COMPATIBILITY with a religion sufficient to indicate truth or plausibility or anything close to that? It's particularly frustrating to read Miller criticizing those who place "God in the gaps" of human knowledge--a criticism I share--but then to see Miller proceed to use quantum physics, of all things, to justify God's ignorance, the limits of materialism, and the power of God to manipulate human events (to perform miracles and answer prayers). God answers our prayers through quanta of light? Miracles performed through photons? This is not a happy medium for any skeptic, and it sure sounds like "God in the gaps" all over again. On top of that, Miller's language use is definitely dramatic and overly metaphoric for a scientific theory that is fundamentally simple, almost boringly so. I believe evolution is so often misunderstood and misinterpretted due to dramatic language--"survival of the fittest" as if the "most fit" are the only ones who survive, or nature "selects" and "weeds out" species as if nature were a person in a grocery store or garden (which is fine, if you're a druid). Miller is guilty of being dramatic like this, which I can forgive of someone writing about a boring subject to at least partially keep the interest of a wide audience, yet criticize as someone who wishes to see both sides UNDERSTOOD (we'll entertain ourselves afterwards, thank you).

The best way this book could be read or used would be 1.) for someone who is very scientifically educated but wants very much to find any reason to hold on to a traditional Western God--if you want that, there is reason here to believe it, I guess; and 2.) as a trojan horse for someone religious to hear the strong case for evolution and be forced to confront how it can (and must) be reconciled with religion. Someone reading this book has no choice but to hear the argument for evolution, and I suspect it's been easy for anti-evolutionists to feel so strongly when they have made such little effort to understand the case (I strongly suspect that many anti-evolutionists don't even know what the theory means exactly). The book will educate, then, even if it doesn't settle the issue like it's intended to.

A mixed success, then, but it has its value.

Anti-evolutionists have become increasingly sophisticated in their attacks on biology. Phillip Johnson argues that evolution presupposes metaphysical naturalism. Michael Behe argues that evolution cannot explain 'irreducibly complex' structures. Distinguished biologist Kenneth Miller (Brown University) refutes these and other misguided attacks on biological evolution in a delightfully written, fast-paced defense of evolution. Miller, a practicing Roman Catholic, also has a fascinating section on evolution's implications for religious belief. Anyone interested in evolution and 'scientific' creation will want to add this book to their library.

With no great understanding of the all issues on either side, I've always believed there can be no fundamental contradiction between valid science and valid religion, evolution and materialist determinism notwithstanding. AT LAST, a knowledgeable, well-informed evolutionary scientist who is also a Christian agrees, and has provided an OUTSTANDING discussion !!

Miller is a well-recognized biology educator and text book author, and he provides exceptionally clear explanation of evolution science, separating FACTS from theory and issues. Along the way he gives NO quarter to "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", and pretty much demolishes those ideas, while showing understanding and respect for the motivations of their advocates.

He also criticizes other biologists who he thinks carry evolutionary theories into inappropriate areas, or who take an extremist view of the implications of evolution for belief in God. He seems critical (though appreciative) of Jay Gould's observations of the seemingly sporadic nature of the fossil record, with large numbers of species appearing in short spurts of geologic time----meaning a few hundred thousand years---followed by long periods, millions of years, with no new species appearing. Gould labeled it "punctuated equilibrium," and for awhile it evidently caused some churning and controversy among biologists. Miller seems to delight in referring to the idea as "punk eek." Creationists jumped on it as evidence of "sudden" appearance of species and evidence of special creation, evidently by misunderstanding the meaning of a "short spurt" in geologic terms.

Miller makes the point that it is the extremists of both sides, science and religion, who have, perhaps erroneously, agreed on the following assumption:

"If the origins of living organisms can be explained in purely material terms, then the existence of God is disproved."

The second half of his book is devoted to examining whether that assumption is true. Obviously he believes it is not, and he makes a compelling case that evolution and religious belief are NOT incompatible. He is a materialist, meaning that all events and actions have material causes and explanations, but does NOT believe it implies that everything is predetermined, or that it precludes the idea of value or meaning in life. He sees the natural world with it's orderly, materialistic laws, as consistent with the existence of a creation designed by a Creator to allow randomness and free will.

From this and other readings, especially the PBS series on evolution and its web site, it appears to me that the controversy between religion and science is greatly overblown by minority extremists of both sides. Reasonable Christians see the Bible as poetry, legend, allegory, history as seen thousands of years ago, and especially as inspired revelation of the relationship between God and man----but certainly not as literal descriptions of events, and CERTAINLY not as science.

Reasonable scientists, on the other hand, see great mystery in the universe and in life, and uncertainties that can NEVER be explained or resolved by science. All the natural laws and universal constants seem uniquely, specifically oriented to allow the eventual evolution of intelligent beings like homo sapiens, a fact that some have labeled the "anthropomorphic principle." (Of course they are---If they weren't, we couldn't exist!) Quantum theory has shown inherent uncertainty at the level of atomic particles, and it leads to the existence of randomness and free will---certainly leaving intellectual room for the POSSIBLE existence of a supreme being that operates in accordance with natural laws, but who cares about values and meaning!! You will need to read the book for an explanation----a brief paraphrase is NOT possible!

Miller believes his view to be entirely consistent with Darwin's own, and closes with the following beautiful quotation from the last page of "The Origin of Species:"

"There is grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved."

Miller's book is OUTSTANDING, and covers religion/science issues in a very interesting way. Strongly recommend this book!!

Miller's book is an attack on Creationism, but not creation. He believes in God, but not a God of the gaps or an Intelligent Designer (qua Behe/Irreducible Complexity). ...Indeed, Miller gives several examples of claimed irreducibly complex organisms, the kind Intelligent Design advocates use, and shows, very convincingly, that they are actually reducible. He actually did the same thing, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, demonstrating the reducibility of the Bacterial Flagellum, Michael Behe's favourite demonstrative organism, for claimed Irreducible Complexity.

Miller actually defends God, not through scripture, but ironically through Darwin's evolution. He attempts to show that one can be both an evolutionist and a theist... his purpose is not only to defend God, but evolution too (I guess he could just as easily reversed the star status and called his book "Finding God's Darwin").

My favourite chapter in this book has to be "The Road Back Home" ...I would happily give this book Five Stars for this chapter alone. For the none scientific amongst us, including me, this gives an excellent layman, rudimentary understanding of quantum action. I never understood Einstein's comment "God doesn't play dice" until I read this chapter, now I get it, this is not the purpose of the chapter though (the purpose is to find room for God). It goes something like this: A light beam is a wave, which is deterministic as a wave, ...thus, a light wave hits a mirror and one can determine that the light will be reflected... However, light waves consist of particles called quanta... Because these particles act at the quantum level, they do something rather strange. A percentage of the particles aren't reflected, but actually pass through the mirror. Now, it has been shown that this quantum behaviour is non-deterministic, in that the actual particles, which pass through the mirror, can never be predicted... Thus, at the quantum level "God does play dice".

This is where Miller gets very clever, he points out that creationists are so anti-evolution, because it is completely deterministic and thus as a scientific theory can be reduced to fundamentals, and so, leaves no room for God, Miller demonstrates that this is not so. At the level of genes where genetic random mutations take place, we approach the very small... At this level quantum behaviour takes over... It is this quantum behaviour, that allows for random non-predictable mutations (which are of course, what Darwin's natural selection acts upon).

He also goes on to say, that the creationists are shrinking the need for God, because the shadows of unknown mysteries, that they could use as an attack on science are shrinking. What Miller does is to say they are looking for God in the wrong place. Miller believes he has found a place for God, not a God of the gaps as claimed by creationists, such as those found in the fossil record... But rather, a god of the gaps at the quantum level.

Unlike Ken Miller I am an atheist, however... though I cannot find room for a supernatural God, that can perform miracles, that would defy the laws of physics. I can look at the quantum level, and at the very most, agnostically, think of the possibility of a quantum intelligence... Indeed, is that how our consciousness works at the quantum level. From that thought I can extrapolate at least, the possibility of advanced conscious beings, that would seem God like to us, but would have evolved through the same evolutionary processes as us. Would such evolved individuals be "gods" (they of course, would be incapable of miracles and would have to obey the laws of physics, just as we do) of the universe and would their consciousness be found in gaps at the quantum level... or rather, would the "fossil record" of conscious intervention, be found at this level. It has been hypothesised by individuals, that the universe has been set up, as a cosmic quantum computer by advanced conscious beings... The only reason we cannot yet access this quantum computer is that we are technologically primitive and lack the energy source to do so.

I would say following on from this... If quantum actions did not take place, then surely evolution could not take place either, because randomness would not be possible. We would have to be a different kind of species, that was not evolved as part of a random proccess... By definition, we would be in a deterministic universe, with no room for random manouvers... The very manouverability which is absolutely neccessary, for biological evolutionary random chance mutations.

In writing this book, Ken Miller has done a very clever thing... He has bridged the gap between evolution and religion, the very thing writers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett seem incapable of... If I were to personally attempt a book on this subject, I have to say, it would perhaps come out more Dawkinsian than Millerian... Nevertheless, I think Miller has done a very good thing.

I didn't really need this book... I was already convinced of the facts of evolution. Sadly the individuals who need this book most, are the least likely to read it, the creationists.

I recently listened to an online radio archive of an interview with Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller happened to phone in... Dawkins said in praise of Miller's book, something like "You have convinced me professor Miller that you are a very clever man". Well, I have to agree, Ken Miller is indeed, a very clever man.

I said earlier, that I did not need convincing of the facts of evolution... Indeed, no conversion has ever been neccessary. I have pretty much accepted it as a scientific fact, as far back as I can remember. I also said for the same reason, I didn't really need this book. However, this is not the same as saying this book does not have value if your already a Darwinian convert. This book works on another level too, to those who love Darwin's theory, this book should be read, just for the love of it. It can only raise your appreciation of this stunning scientific theory.

Whatever the ulimate answers, I can only call Ken Miller's book a brilliant achievement.

Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" is an eloquent defense of evolution that refutes every argument ever advanced by so-called "creation scientists". He offers a sympathetic portrayal of creationism while providing clear, compelling evidence why it isn't science. His reasonable arguments in defense of evolution and religion are ones which every creationist should heed. Indeed, he clearly demonstrates the philosophical kinship which evolution shares with monotheistic faiths such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, some may regard his version of GOD as one more consistent with Deism than with Christianity.

Kenneth Miller is celebrated at Brown University for his excellence in teaching. Such excellence is mirrored in his crisp, eloquent prose. And it is literary excellence which deserves to be awarded with a Pulitzer Prize. Although I never had the pleasure of enrolling in his courses, I feel privileged to have helped him embark upon his successful career debating creationists throughout North America. Back in 1981 I was the sole evolutionist on an ad hoc campus committee which invited Kenneth Miller to debate creationist Henry Morris from the "Institute for Creation Research" in San Diego, California. Needless to say, Kenneth Miller won his first debate.