[.ca] Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common ... (ISBN 0061233501)

God is in the details:
Miller's book is divided into two equal halves, one for science, one for religion. Miller really shines in the first half of the book, directly confronting three current, popular, creationist ideas. Miller starts out proposing that the creation-evolution dispute is largely the result of extremists in both science and religion PARADOXICALLY accepting the extremist position of the other side. In other words, science extremists say science shows that life has no purpose; religious faithful accept that as an accurate description of science; and that leads them to reject science altogether. Similarly, religious extremists say God and evolution are incompatible; scientists accept that; and that leads them to reject religion. So each side's erroneous acceptance of extremist arguments of the other side insures continued conflict. Correct or not, that proposal is guaranteed to enliven any Bible study or faculty lounge conversation :-) Chapter 2 describes some entertaining examples (using beer cans!) showing how scientists can obtain reliable knowledge of both ancient events and distant events without either personally observing them or reproducing them in a lab. Miller also highlights the importance of biogeography, showing that fossil sequences are in an orderly progression, not just chronologically, but also geographically, with similar species close to each other in both time AND space. The Darwinian inference is obvious. Chapter 3 reviews young-Earth creationism (YEC). Miller uses coprolites (fossilized feces) to show that YEC's literally don't know squat. He also reports brazen dishonesty on the part of a prominent creationist who uses the Earth's magnetic field as young-Earth evidence. Miller also presents a very simple argument showing how the absence of the 20-plus persistent nuclides with a half-life less than 80 million years shows that Earth must be AT LEAST 1.6 billion years old. This is a disaster for YEC, of course. YECs often dismiss radiometric dating as being subject to contamination, but Miller shows how geologists avoid those problems with some ingenious cross-checks. Chapter 4 discusses the Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) advocated by Phillip Johnson, whose version of IDC is based largely on his interpretation of punctuated equilibrium (PE) in the fossil record. PE means, ". . . change is not continuous; . . . \orather\c each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (PE is a key concept, so keep that definition in mind for just a moment, please.) Johnson argues: 1) all species appear in the fossil record suddenly, i.e., in a punctuated manner, thus disproving Darwinian gradualism; and 2) since Darwinism is wrong, fossil sequences must be interpreted as the product of a Great, Overall Design (GOD). But Miller examines the fossil record of several interesting species, showing how they merge into each other, chronologically AND geographically. Considering the sheer number of species throughout geologic history that follow the same pattern of chronologic and geographic progression, the conclusion is inescapable. Arguing that God individually created each one of the millions upon millions of species AND just happened to put every last one of them in a chronologic and geographic order consistent with common descent is more than a little hard to believe! By the way, remember the definition of PE above? It comes from a very famous book by a very famous author: "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin! Yes, that's right. It was Darwin himself who introduced the concept of PE, 100 years BEFORE Gould and Eldredge. He just used different vocabulary. So Johnson's argument that PE is inconsistent with Darwin is simply stupid. Johnson also argues that evolution lacks an adequate mechanism to make the punctuated changes found in the fossil record. For example, the fossil sequences for horses show a rate of change of .04 darwins, and the fossil sequences for Triceratops show a rate of change of .06 darwins. A "darwin" is a rate of change of 2.718 in 1,000,000 years, and .04 or .06 darwins is a very high rate of change to be found in the fossil record; so Johnson's argument essentially is that species cannot change through natural means at those rates, and that intelligent intervention must have been involved instead. But Miller points out that rates of up to 45,000 darwins are ROUTINELY observed in living species, making Johnson's argument wrong by a factor of up to 10 million! Chapter 5 examines Michael Behe's irreducible complexity (IC). Behe says IC systems could not possibly have evolved step-by-step, because if a single piece is missing from an IC system, the system will not function at all. Behe identifies several allegedly IC systems, such as the bacterial flagellum and the cilia, which he says will not function at all without all of their parts; but Miller very effectively points out that every single one of Behe's allegedly IC systems is found in nature in a reduced form, and that every single one of those reduced forms still functions just fine! So what doesn't function here is Behe's IC! Miller's religious opinions in the second half of the book are no more persuasive than others I've read, though his argument that quantum physics indeterminacy invalidates reductionist, determinist philosophies is very intriguing, and possibly very helpful in rebutting both scientistic and creationist arguments that modern science eliminates purpose and free will. This review gives just a hint of the rich detail in Miller's book. Under Miller's microscope, the flaws of young-Earth creationism, Johnson's intelligent design, and Behe's irreducible complexity are revealed and described in detail. Buy the book to see the rest for yourselves!

Best of Type:
I have been intrigued by the on-going debate regarding evolution. As a result, over the last year I have read a range of books on the issue starting with Darwin's Origin of Species, and, including works by Pennock, Dawkins, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others. Of recent works defending the theory of evolution Finding Darwin's God is the best that I have come across for a popular audience. In the early portion of the book Miller provides a good and succinct case for evolution (something I find Dawkins incapable of). The author then addresses several of the different challenges to evolution (Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Johnson and Behe). He is most successful against the YEC, but his responses to the others challengers, if not decisive, is well articulated. Apoint that is particularly well done is the discussion with respect to why evolution is such an emotionally charged issue. I agree with Miller that one of the causes of this is the extreme extrapolations atheists such as Dawkins, Gould et al make from what at the end of the day is a limited scientific theory (albeit an interesting one). For those unfamiliar with this aspect of the discussion, many "popularizers" of evolution attempt to use the theory to argue for materialism/determinism and eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. In the second part of the book Miller goes on to argue that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. In doing so, he touches on a range of scientific and theological issues including: deism, quantum theory, cosmology and apologetics. This part of the book was not as well done. I support Miller's general contentions but, believe that he tried to accomplish too much and got out of his intellectual depth. Although it had some good points the second half was repetitive and a bit disjointed. I will just offer a few comments on some of these latter arguments before closing. First, Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the word nor free will are contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy (an excellent collection of essays on various philosophical questions). Additionally, similar to other scientific fields much work is on-going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area could prove to be methodological. Second, Miller's handling of cosmology and its theological ramifications are weak. Readers seeking a better understanding of this issue can seek one of Bill Craig's many excellent works in this area. Third, it is not surprising that the author as a scientist approaches the issue from a classic modernist standpoint (i.e. science is the only source of truth). Much fascinating discussion has taken place around this issue and, some significant challenges have been raised by postmodern thinkers. For an introduction to postmodern philosophical work Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism is simply outstanding. Finally, the author gives to much credence to the threat evolution poses to religion. In contemporary apologetics the argument from design plays a limited role and, when used it revolves around the fundamental relationships in the universe not evolution (Miller touched on this issue). All but the most literal of Christians (YEC types) do not see evolution and a Christian worldview as incompatible. In conclusion, good book, well worth the money. For those exploring the evolution argument I recommend it along with Behe's Darwins's Black Box and a work by Philip Johnson such as The Wedge of Truth (to get a fell for both sides).

Best of Type:
I have been intrigued by the on-going debate regarding evolution. As a result, over the last year I have read a range of books on the issue starting with Darwin's Origin of Species, and, including works by Pennock, Dawkins, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others. Of recent works defending the theory of evolution Finding Darwin's God is the best that I have come across for a popular audience. In the early portion of the book Miller provides a good and succinct case for evolution (something I find Dawkins incapable of). The author then addresses several of the different challenges to evolution (Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Johnson and Behe). He is most successful against the YEC, but his responses to the others challengers, if not decisive, are well articulated. A point that is particularly well done is the discussion with respect to why evolution is such an emotionally charged issue. I agree with Miller that one of the causes of this is the extreme extrapolations atheists such as Dawkins, Gould et al make from what at the end of the day is a limited scientific theory (albeit an interesting one). For those unfamiliar with this aspect of the discussion, many "popularizers" of evolution attempt to use the theory to argue for materialism/determinism and eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. In the second part of the book Miller goes on to argue that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. In doing so, he touches on a range of scientific and theological issues including: deism, quantum theory, cosmology and apologetics. This part of the book was not as well done. I support Miller's general contentions but, believe that he tried to accomplish too much and got out of his intellectual depth. Although it had some good points the second half was repetitive and a bit disjointed. I will just offer a few comments on some of these latter arguments before closing. First, Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the word nor free will are contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy (an excellent collection of essays on various philosophical questions). Additionally, similar to other scientific fields much work is on-going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area could prove to be methodological. Second, Miller's handling of cosmology and its theological ramifications are weak. Readers seeking a better understanding of this issue can seek one of Bill Craig's many excellent works in this area. Third, it is not surprising that the author as a scientist approaches the issue from a classic modernist standpoint (i.e. science is the only source of truth). Much fascinating discussion has taken place around this issue and, some significant challenges have been raised by postmodern thinkers. For an introduction to postmodern philosophical work Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism is simply outstanding. Finally, the author gives to much credence to the threat evolution poses to religion. In contemporary apologetics the argument from design plays a limited role and, when used it revolves around the fundamental relationships in the universe not evolution (Miller touched on this issue). All but the most literal of Christians (YEC types) do not see evolution and a Christian worldview as incompatible. In conclusion, good book, well worth the money. For those exploring the evolution argument I recommend it along with Behe's Darwins's Black Box and a work by Philip Johnson such as The Wedge of Truth (to get a fell for both sides).

Terrific book:
This is a tremendous book that will help any seeker reconcile both evolution and the existence of evil with a caring and loving God. This may help you believe in a Theist God but for me it falls short of the Christian God because it doesn't show the role and purpose of Jesus. Nevertheless, a great book for any theist or those considering theism.

Contains many major mistakes:
Although this book has much good material, it contains many major mistakes. For example,research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must be of the "inverted" design. Miller claims that this design is suboptimal because the photoreceptors are on the inside curvature of the retina, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors The photoreceptors (rods and cones) MUST face AWAY from the front of the eye in order to be in contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supply it with blood. The verted design claimed by Miller to be best would not place the photoreceptors in contact with their source of nutrition (the choroid). This is a serious problem because rods and cones need an enormous amount of energy for repair and they completely replace themselves at a very high rate (about every 7 days or so), due to phototoxicity, and other damage. Miller's design simply would not allow the rods and cones to function because of their extremely high rate of metabolism. Furthermore, placing the neural components of the retina in front of the photoreceptors does not produce any kind of optical handicap, since the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light, so very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was near-perfect transparency.