|
Review Summary: Lucid, balanced guide to the challenges of science for faith |
Date: 1999-11-01 |
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: The best defense for Darwinism I have ever read. |
Date: 2000-01-26 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: God is a Creator, not a Creationist |
Date: 2000-04-09 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Excellent refutation of 'scientific' creationism |
Date: 1999-11-15 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: A pro-theism, pro-evolution, anti-creationism masterpiece |
Date: 2006-07-12 |
|
|
| |
Details: 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. |
| |
|
out of 127 Reviews
