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

I really enjoyed reading Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God." In the first few chapters he reinforced my belief that the theory of evolution is correct. He shows why young-Earth creationists, "old-Earth" creationists, and proponents of intelligent design are wrong about the origins and development of the human species. One of the key points in the book is why people don't accept evolution to be true and that is because the concept of evolution is inconsistent with their ideas of how God works. Miller points out that some of the views of antievolutionists are incompatible with the traditional concept of the God of Abraham and it is actually science that comes closer to supporting traditional Christianity. Miller argues effectively for the position that God is not only not threatened by science and evolution but that the conclusions that science is arriving at are what people should expect if the God of the Bible were to exist. In any case Miller shows us that it is more than OK to accept the findings of science and be religious too.

Product was as described! Delivery could have been quicker, but that's just our society haha. It was within about a week, so no worries. Thanks!

A noble and engaging book, but a failure.

Believers must deal with a core dilemma: Either they accept the truth of the Bible, in which case they show themselves as scientific ignoramuses; or they reject the truth of the Bible but believe anyway, in which case they show themselves as hypocrites.

Miller attempts the only middle path available: treat the Bible as partly true, partly false.

The part he rejects as false is the Creation story of Genesis. With the patience and fatherly tone of a minister addressing his flock, he makes an uncompromising case for evolution.

There is wonder enough to be found in that mechanism, he maintains, to support belief in a Creator. That is the "Darwin's God" of the title.

But he is no Deist, nor an apostle of any of those washy Gods some describe as "the sum of all mysteries" or "Nature incarnate". He believes in the traditional God, the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. He believes in the burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, the pillar of fire, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, the loaves and the fishes, the water into wine, the raising of the dead. Especially, he accepts that most contra-scientific tale of all, the Virgin Birth.

The truth of the Bible must be measured by science, he argues in his compelling defense of evolution. But these other events are simply "miracles". "That's the way God works".

So his posture is that the Bible must be tested against science SELECTIVELY. There is the failure. Nowhere does he set out the standards for selecting.

If you are interested in the old science-versus-religion debate, read the book. It's fascinating. But it dodges the central question.

This is a wonderful book and it is wonderful in several ways. First, it sets out the known facts with regard to evolutionary thought, the `intelligent design' challenges to that thought, the problems with the `intelligent design' critiques, but also the problems with a thoroughgoing and absolutist materialism. It then argues from the scientific facts back to a divine creator and, finally, imagines `Darwin's God'. This account is presented with implicit plot arcs, thus underlining the actual drama of this succession of episodes in the history of ideas. The story culminates in a happy ending.

It is particularly happy for me, since it reinforces many of the scientific/religious attitudes which preceded Darwin. For example, the members of the Royal Society in the late 17th century denied that man would ever achieve causal or essential explanations of scientific phenomena, arguing instead that our ultimate knowledge would be statistical or probabilistic. This attitude is confirmed by quantum mechanics and the ultimate uncertainty and undecidability which attends the actions of subatomic particles. For Miller, this provides a crucial divine window--accounting for the possibility of creative change within a system which was created to respond to the rules of chemistry and physics. The nature of actual scientific reality (in quantum mechanics) thus militates against the rigidity of those scientists who would claim that our material world proceeds on its own, rigorously, deterministically and, in a sense, mindlessly and indifferently. It also militates against the science-bending views of some of the pious who imagine a constant set of special creations.

Miller's world is very much a 17thc one. Milton and others imagined a religious realm in which God was accessible through the book of His word and the book of His works, i.e., through scripture on the one hand and nature on the other. In this framework scientists were thought of as exceptionally pious and especially close to God, since they had dedicated themselves to studying his works. Miller hopes to reclaim some of that attitude for our own time and he succeeds in doing so.

The argument concerning quantum mechanics not only reinforces the Royal Society's belief that ultimate explanations are beyond humankind; it also reinforces Hume's skepticism, which denies the possibility of ultimate certainty because of our inability to attain a complete empirical experience. In other words, you can't be certain that a will follow b, that a will cause b, unless and until you know every possible action/relationship that could obtain between a and b. You can proceed on the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow but you can't be absolutely and utterly certain of it. Quantum mechanics demonstrate that there will in fact be variability and, hence, ultimate uncertainty concerning subatomic action. Our inferences may be close enough for government work, but they will not achieve perfect certainty and in the case of such things as gene mutations we may encounter something quite unexpected.

One of the standard reasons for a clash between science and religion is traceable to the imagined world generated by Darwinism--the nature red in tooth and claw problem memorialized by Tennyson. This is muted by some of the insights of sociobiology, which show, e.g., that cooperation and selflessness play key roles in human behavior and in our genetic history. It is ultimately countered by Milton's argument (Miller tends to lean on an intermediate source, Ian Barbour) that God permits evil in the world because if He did not, human choices would carry no moral weight. If we were programmed or forced to only do good, our actions would not be virtuous. As Milton puts it, an Adam such as that would be totally artificial, like a character in a puppet show. Without the possibility of bad choices there would be no possibility of true human liberty or human virtue.

This is a very rich book. The science is explained as lucidly as it possibly can be explained for lay people and the religious insights and arguments are presented just as lucidly and just as persuasively. It is a gutsy book in that Miller does not hesitate to lay some of the blame for our current condition at the feet of some of the well-known and highly regarded `village atheist' scientists (my phrase, not his), who attempt to use science to pummel the pious and congratulate themselves on their enlightened atheism. Miller, trained in the Catholic tradition, learned what the nuns taught many of us--that faith is a gift. He also knows Hume's argument that faith cannot be challenged by reason because it is beyond reason. It is `irrational' but that should not be taken, a priori, as a bad thing. Samuel Johnson once said that the road of reason leads to the road of religion. Some can't complete the trip because they lack the gift of faith, but Miller tries to take them as far as he possibly can and he does so through the full utilization of Darwinian science. The book seeks to find Darwin's God, not Paley's or Archbishop Ussher's and it nicely aligns itself with Augustine in its depiction of Genesis (actually the two Genesis accounts) as spiritual rather than scientific. Highly recommended. An essential book.

My review of "Finding Darwin's God", which was written by Kenneth Miller.

4.5/5 stars (rounds to 5/5)

The first chapter is an introduction. No meat and potatoes here, but he does lay the groundwork for the basic idea that he is both a religious person and a strong advocate for the theory of evolution. He saves the idea of why this is for later.

In the next few chapters, after the introductory material, Miller goes through step by step and explains why we know the earth is old, why fossil evidence is so important (with some cool examples), what evolution in general means, etc. He explains common creationist and/or design proponent arguments, and why they don't hold up. In other words, he completely demolishes creationism and intelligent design on a scientific level. Here his focus is Logos.
And, thanks to Miller, isochron dating is finally starting to make sense in my mind. I also learned a few other things that I didn't know before in the examples he gives.

For roughly the second half of his book, he gives a lot of attention to how the theory of evolution is not a problem with respect to belief in God. He explains that if there is a God (and he very much believes there is), then evolution (which is obviously happening) must have been one of God's creation mechanisms, which is why his understanding of evolution strengthens the feelings he has towards God.
He briefly mentions things like the Catholic Church saying positive things about evolution, and that ancient Christians (like Saint Augustine) were not Bible literalists even before we knew about evolution.

He devotes some time in these later chapters to explaining why a materialistic worldview (looking at science, or the world in general, without God) is disagreeable to him. He also briefly touches on the idea of Non Overlapping Magisterium (though he doesn't name it, if I recall correctly) seeming to indicate that he agrees with it. (Note: I agree with Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" which explains why these ideas are not the most tenable.)

I, as an agnostic, was reading the book fishing for example arguments for the existence of God. I found no such arguments; nor did I find attempts at such arguments. (Assumptions that there is a God for some of his writing is not the same as making an argument.) Miller openly admits that, while evolution makes him feel closer to God, it's not proof of God's existence. He admits that nothing in science proves (or disproves) God's existence.
There are many passages where it is clear that Miller assumes there is a God, which I found a bit annoying, but in the end it makes sense: Not only is Miller a believer, but it is quite clear that the target audience of his book is religious people. By pandering to that mindset (assumption that God is real, which he agrees with), he's more likely to (via Pathos) to convince religious people that evolution is a great idea. (Logos is usually not enough for this kind of thing.)

Considering his target audience, his book is excellent. It allows someone to accept evolution without having to "give up God" too. I honestly think that most open-minded people who are against evolution would be swayed by this book. It is powerful.

For me (agnostic; not his target audience): Mostly only the first half of the book was excellent. The entire book seemed, to me, to be intellectually honest, and I find my self liking Ken Miller as a person (though, to be fair, I already did after seeing his lectures on Youtube).

The entire thing was certainly worth the money spent buying the book, and the time spent reading it.