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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.