Customer Rating:  
Summary: Just another guy with his imaginary friend
Comment: Can see the science but still needs the imaginary friend. Is he any better than the creationists morons? Yes I suppose he is, but he is still shares part of their stupidity.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Much useful material, but too much religion
Comment: As others have remarked, the first half of the book is much better than the second. How is it possible, one must ask, that an intelligent and informed writer can marshall so many strong arguments against the creationist view of science only to arrive at the conclusion that "the God of the Bible, even the God of Genesis, is a Deity fully consistent with what we know of the scientific reality of the modern world"? A few pages later, he writes "I do think that God is good", even though all of the arguments in the first half of the book lead inexorably to the conclusion that if God exists he is anything but good, unless "good" is defined perversely to include the idea of being utterly indifferent to the well being of all of his creatures.
The first half is not without its faults. No one would think of mentioning God every three or four pages in a book about organic chemistry, for example; in this book, however, even the titles of more than half of the chapters (not to mention the title of the book itself) include the word. Why should biology be any different from organic chemistry and most other subjects? One reason is, of course, that the creationists are more inclined to display their ignorance about biology than about organic chemistry, but that isn't an entirely satisfactory explanation -- creationists also like to display their ignorance of geology, but authors of serious books about geology manage to write them without mentioning God every few pages.
We all know, of course, that the primary motivation of the "scientific creationists" is religious, but they themselves like to pretend that they are purely scientific, so it should be possible to discuss their "scientific" claims without reference to their religion, and Sahotra Sarkar did this brilliantly in his book Doubting Darwin: Creationist Designs on Evolution.
Despite all these reservations, there is much to like in Kenneth Miller's book. His explanation of how the analysis by Enrique Meléndez-Hevia of the Krebs cycle pulled the rug from under Michael Behe's claim that there was no way it could have evolved by natural selection was very well done, and was probably the first popular account of this important study. His list of ALL of the radioactive nuclides with half lives greater than a million years is very illuminating: if we exclude those that are continuously being produced today, we find that all the ones with a half life greater than 80 million years can be found in nature; all those with shorter half lives cannot. The example of the diatom Rhizosolenia for which a virtually complete fossil record is available supplies a very nice illustration of the correctness of Darwin's view of speciation. In general the first half of the book (and occasionally the second half) is well worth reading for the wealth of such examples, but it's a pity that this was not done entirely within the creationists' claims to be considered scientists.
Customer Rating:
Summary: An evolution book for the religious
Comment: I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God to all readers interested in Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection because in the lion's share of it, Miller, who is a cell biologist, (1) clearly explains why evolution is a solid scientific fact and (2) absolutely destroys the arguments of creationism and intelligent design. But I especially recommend the book to people who are religious because Miller is like them; he believes in a personal God. As he says on page 221, "I am interested in a traditional view of God -- the one described by the great Western monotheistic religions." Miller is a Roman Catholic who believes in God not despite evolution, but because of it. "Only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves" (258). I personally find his argument for God's existence woefully weak; but even so, his book may be more valuable than The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is essentially preaching to the atheistic choir. A typical believer might say of Dawkins, "He's a hell-bound heathen. Why should I listen to a word he says?" Miller, on the other hand, supports -- and validates -- the believer's worldview and is able to explain why belief in a personal God does not in any way preclude the acceptance of evolution or even indeterminacy in nature.
Toward the end of the book, Miller discusses a 19th Century work by an amateur naturalist named Robert Chambers. Fifteen years before The Origin of Species, Chambers postulated a "creation by law" in the natural world that "infinitely exalted" rather than diminished the concept of a divine creator. Miller concludes, "It is impossible not to be moved by the strength and sincerity of [Chambers'] conviction that the study of nature is akin to the worship of God" (283). Statements like this indeed will tend to mollify true believers, as Miller takes them by the hand and leads them toward the scientific truth of evolution, and for that I applaud Miller. Yet I must confess that it seems to me that, while Miller was writing his book, as soon as he started discussing God, his mind opened a bit to widely and his brain fell out.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Two books in one
Comment: This book could be divided rather neatly in half.
In the first half, chapters 1-5, Miller does an excellent job of making the case for the scientific theory of evolution, and discrediting Creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism. He writes clearly and gives specific, relevant examples. You'd think the man has some experience writing about biology. He even includes a very good section on isotope dating, which is not something you could take for granted from a biologist. He presents examples of transitional fossils. He describes irreducible complexity, and why this does not present an obstacle for evolution; once again with clear examples presented.
Then the book abruptly turns a corner. In chapter 6, Miller relates correctly that there are two camps who claim that religion is not compatible with science: Fundamentalists Creationists and some atheist scientists. Miller states that if this incompatibility were true (which he does not believe), the Fundamentalists would be justified in turning their back on science. This is a shocking revelation coming from a scientist. I, for one, could not possibly consider joining him in hiding my head in the sand. Reality must be acknowledged, no matter how much it may conflict with our wishes.
Miller offers a lengthy description of quantum indeterminacy, which he portrays as a barrier to a completely deterministic scientific explanation of everything, and therefore a gap in which he may hide his God. But a couple chapters later he acknowledges his belief that those seemingly random quantum events are actually random, or at least most of the time. This undercuts his earlier presentation. Miller also presents quantum indeterminacy as a gap in which to shelter free will. But a God who is indistinguishable from random chance is not a God that anyone is concerned with defending, and random chance is not what people mean when they defend free will. Miller also offers the usual apologetics about evil being necessary so that God could offer us free will, but he has nothing new to offer to that rather unconvincing argument.
Later, Miller admits that he believes in miracles. That would be macro-miracles, not the random quantum fluctuations he discussed earlier, but he never defends his belief in miracles, or discusses the incompatibility of this view with his acceptance of science. At one point he acknowledges that he runs experiments in his lab on the presumption that miraculous intervention will not skew the results.
Miller discusses cosmological fine-tuning, which is out of his field, and does nothing for the sort of personal Christian God Miller believes in. The God of fine-tuning is a vague Deistic entity.
Miller agrees with Stephen Jay Gould that Homo sapiens was not inevitable, and that if the tape of history were replayed, some very different creatures may have achieved consciousness first, and that God would have focused his attention on them. I suspect this tack will lose him the support of many other theists.
Miller seems to credit evolution for his belief in God:
"The irony is that only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves. By recognizing the continuing force of evolution, a religious person acknowledged that God is every bit as creative in the present as He was in the past. That - and not a rejection of any core ideas of evolution - is why I am a believer."
This needs clarification. This may be how Miller manages to retain his belief while accepting evolution, but it certainly did not cause him to become a believer; he was already a believer before he entered science.
Miller repeatedly dismisses the arguments of other scientists on matters of religion as "opinions" and criticizes them for over-extending science into matters of philosophy and theology. Miller's attack on cognitive science theories such as Steven Pinker's notions of "mental modules" is obscurantist and atrocious. Miller never engages or even acknowledges the evidence behind these theories, instead dismissing them in a manner that is similar to the Creationist "only a theory" canard against which he argues earlier in the book.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Informative, Important but Somewhat Lacking
Comment: As so many of the other reviews state, the first part of the book is excellent in explaining how solid the evidence is for evolution and how arguments against evolution have all been proven incorrect.
Dr. Miller then goes on to explain how flawed the strategy of fighting evolution is, if you are a believer in God. By doing this, you then give scientists, and the public, a weapon against belief because you equate God only with a universe in which the laws of science are not sufficient to explain our existence. So as science keeps finding the mechanisms which brought us here - as science is constantly doing - you are arming atheists with evidence that there is no God. A more mature way to view God is that He "fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself."
But Dr. Miller also explains how some scientists are also guilty of creating this artificial rift between belief in evolution and belief in God. He quotes several scientists who claim that evolution invalidates God and even eliminates the possibility that life has meaning! No wonder believers of God try to find a way of invalidating evolution.
I believe Dr. Miller's argument - that a God who gives us freedom of action and thought; a God who made the world and life sufficient to evolve without needing intervention; and a God who can still choose to act in our world using the undetectable tools of space, time, chance and indeterminacy - is well thought out and well argued. It is a very important point that so many people seem to miss and this is why I think this book is very important. We cannot allow immature thinking to leave us with opinions that either deny overwhelming scientific evidence or declare that life has no meaning and morality may not even exist.
At the time I write this, the most helpful review has the following criticism of the book:
"... 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."
I strongly disagree with this statement. Just read page 242 where Dr. Miller writes "God, the Creator of space, time, chance, and indeterminacy, would exercise exactly the degree of control He chooses." And then continues to discuss how God could influence the thoughts and actions of individuals when we pray for strength, understanding or patience, for example. A God who creates a world where he does not have to intervene does not equal a world where God cannot intervene.
I do, however, have some criticisms of my own. Like many other reviewers I also find some of the latter part of the book a bit weak. For example, in the section labeled "No More Mr. Nice Guy" he declares the argument that evolution is too cruel to be compatible with a loving God, as "the strangest, the least logical," and "the most bizarre."
Perhaps because of his low opinion of this argument, Dr. Miller is able to give only a weak and unmoving counter-argument. Basically, he says that evolution is no more cruel than the "raw savagery of nature itself" and that altruistic behaviors do exist in nature and they are "most often directed towards helping close relatives... [so] the gene is actually helping a copy of itself to survive. So the selfish gene theory comes in to make evolution more Godly? What about an answer that discussed how evolution is misinterpreted to be nothing but competition where only the few, strongest species and individuals survive by ruthlessly looking out for only themselves? There are millions of species on the planet today and there are billions of humans in existence at this moment. We are interdependent and we are great at co-existing. Evolution is not as cruel as most of have been led to believe. If you want a much better answer to that question, I recommend the book Darwin's Lost Theory of Love by David Loye. The mere fact that we humans do risk our lives for others, many times for those we are not related to, is a fact of nature. And when scientists say that evolution is fact and that implies that we are selfish and can only care about the survival of our own genes, they are obviously wrong.
Lastly, it should be noted that this book is limited to the God of "western religions". Dr. Miller explains why he does not deal with Eastern religions - "Many Eastern religions take the view that reality is entirely subjective" therefore the workings of nature would also be considered subjective rather than reflecting God. Dr. Miller's God is male (using exclusively masculine pronouns for God such as "He" and "His") though he does state on page 274 that "theologians have long maintained that any vision of God as a physical person of a particular age, dress, and appearance is necessarily in error." He maintains that the bible was written to nourish the soul (a quote from Saint Augustine that Dr. Miller agrees with) and that it should not be taken as a scientific description of the world. Thus the two versions of creation (in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) which contradict each other - man and woman are made simultaneously in chapter 1; man was made first and then after some time woman was created in chapter 2 - require interpretation and are not literal truths. The question one might ask as to how women being an afterthought and many other statements in the bible (e.g. Eve being responsible for the downfall of man and God punishing all women by making childbirth painful) may be nourishing to the soul is not touched upon. Dr. Miller is not interested in revising or questioning the bible or religion except in the very specific area where anyone's religious beliefs may contradict evolution. That is personally disappointing to me and I find it weakens his theology but it is very understandable as Dr. Miller is a religious person who's attempting nothing more than finding a way for him to be able to reconcile evolution to his religion and help others do the same.
You may consider looking at the website: [...] and reading the book: Darwin's Lost Theory of Love by David Loye (see link below) in addition to reading this book.
Darwin's Lost Theory of Love
|
