Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

This book undertakes to refute intelligent design (ID). Unlike many in this controversy, author Miller proceeds reasonably respectfully. Indeed he states that, since intelligent design (ID) proponents claim that it is scientific in approach, ID should be evaluated as a science.

To take ID seriously, Miller addresses a mainstay of ID today: Irreducible complexity. This idea asserts that complex biological mechanisms show intelligent design because the mechanisms must be complete in order to function and are useless unless fully formed. The human eye is a much used example as is the common mousetrap at a simpler level. Thus a series of partial changes over time (as evolutionists typically posit) cannot increase a species' adaptability/survivability because a partially formed eye has no function whatever.

Miller first addresses this argument for the mousetrap. He notes that the irreducible complexity argument requires that individual mousetrap parts can have no use other than as part of the completed mousetrap. Miller then establishes that parts of a mousetrap can be used in other useful ways.

Miller next confronts the bacterial flagellum (the flailing propulsive "tail" mechanism of bacteria, said to be a common example of irreducible complexity in ID thought). He shows that the flagellum is a modified and adapted version of another structure that performs significant, but quite different, functions in bacteria concluding that an "unfinished" flagellum can and does perform a useful function, and is thus not irreducibly complex as asserted in ID thought.

There are other arguments in the book, but brevity prohibits anything beyond mere mention of a couple. One argument is based on recent research showing how the human immune system combines the precisely correct cells (from many thousands of differentiated cells manufactured for various possible threats) to counter a specific actual invader. ID proponents had argued that this process could never be proved by evolutionists. Another is based on the theoretical and real-world ability of evolutionary modifications to add new genetic information based in part on the demonstrated ability of bacteria to develop an ability to eat synthetic materials that they were previously unable to consume.

Miller is a biology professor at Brown University and a co-author of high school biology texts. He has published research articles in professional journals and articles on biology in popular publications. He is a renowned combatant in the evolutionary wars as well. Not surprisingly, his book is well written. It is nonetheless too long.

The book includes a section explaining the nature of scientific inquiry and what a scientist means when he speaks of a "theory." It is much too long. Miller also includes a section in which he argues that acceptance of evolution means neither the abandonment of religion nor the adoption of an exclusively materialistic philosophy. Many of those who oppose evolution believe the opposite. Neither position, to my mind, is susceptible to rational argument. Finally, even if Miller is correct that ID and creationism are merely part of a design to bring down all of modern science, what he adduces is far short of proof. The book is nonetheless well worth reading.

Ken Miller takes apart the Intelligent Design theory piece by piece. Utterly brutal, yet completely respectful and balanced.

This book was not what I expected. I was expecting a book more on evolutionary thought and its affect on the religious environment in the country along with a more historical treatment of its effects on the larger issues in society. Rather it was a counter-point to and, demonstration of evolutionary theory against the Intelligent Design maxim. Mostly the writing was rather dry, but engaging enough for the facts and examples presented in the earlier chapters.

In the later chapters, Miller addresses what he thinks are the true motives behind the intelligent design community, namely the piecemeal dismantling of a naturalistic approach to science in favor of a more religiously tolerant world-view. If this is the intent, I find it both unsettling and disastrous to the cause of science.

Miller also makes leeway into the idea that `purpose' may exist for mankind's existence, insofar as there is an `order' to and a `deterministic' quality in the way the universe unfolds.

The topics were approached in a very mature, and emotionless manner, rather than in a more historical and narrative style than what I was looking for. Still, the resulting maturity was appreciated, and the overall feel for the book left me with an intelligent discussion on the merits of evolutionary theory and the dangers of baulking at scientific inquiry.

In "Only a Theory" Kenneth Miller does the best job I've seen of taking on the anti-evolution arguments of Intelligent Design. ID is touted by some religious people as a legitimate "scientific" alternative to Darwinism. Miller painstakingly lays out ID's failings and the true intentions of its adherents. He attacks the underpinning assumptions of "irreducible complexity" -- the idea that certain biological structures are so complex that they must have been designed "de novo" by a Designer. Miller shows how components of the flagellum of bacteria (an example of irreducible complexity according to ID theorists) are found elsewhere in nature, and could easily have been incorporated into the more complex structure of bacterial tails. The same goes for ID's mousetrap analogy. Sure, take away a component of a mousetrap and you no longer have a mousetrap, but you do have another useful, if unrelated, structure. It is a tenet of evolutionary biology that evolution works by modifying existing structures.

Miller also takes aim at the true aim of ID supporters, which is to change to definition of science itself. Since the Enlightenment, science has been the study of natural processes. ID supporters want to include supernatural explanations into this definition. But where does this get us? As Miller argues, will earthquakes now be attributed to divine wrath rather than tectonic shifts? If so, why bother exploring nature when an "answer" is so readily available?

I was intrigued, however by Miller's suggestion that biology was biased in the direction of the variation that powers natural selection. In this view, imperfections in DNA replication are not tragic -- and extremely rare -- mistakes, but a feature of the process. Perhaps perfect replication is the mistake in a biosphere that needs variation to drive survival of the best designs. Miller, a practicing Roman Catholic, comes closest to allowing for divine participation in the universe when he examines the Anthropic Principle. This principle which suggests that, of course the universe looks like it is designed with us in mind -- what other universe could support beings capable of asking that question? He is on the thinnest ice, not that he is wrong, when he suggests that the universe itself is biased not only toward generating life, but toward generating intelligent life, whether human or not. There's a hint of intent in this notion, but one that at least does not seek to redefine science and ignore the evidence of our senses to do it.

As American culture wrestles with evolution and other topics in its current "Culture Wars," we need more scientists like Miller to explain the complex and sometimes disturbing findings of biology, geology, astronomy and paleontology. "Only a Theory" does its bit, doing a remarkable job of showing where ID leaves off and true scientific investigation begins.

In my mind, this book is divided into three sections (though not physically separated as such in the table of contents). The first section (chapters 1-4) is an overview of the tenets of Intelligent Design (ID) and a rebuttal to all of the claims ID advocates make. The second section (chapters 5-6) argues for meaning in life despite ID's claim that evolution produces an amoral, meaningless society. The third section (chapters 7-8) discusses the real goals of ID and the methods being employed to achieve these goals.

The first section is fantastic. No prior knowledge of ID is required, because Miller describes the tenets of ID very well, and then proceeds to prove everyone of them false based on evidence produced by science. This is clearly one of the main purposes of reading this book -- to see how scientists can (rather easily) destroy ID as a scientific theory.

The third section is also good because it's the other reason you might read this book (and gets into the topic suggested by the book's subtitle). This section discusses ID's "Wedge document," the founding document which states ID's purpose of effectively "wedging" itself into the foundations of science in order to collapse science as we know it and redefine it to allow for supernatural explanations. This is the most frightening part of the book, because it shows exactly how well ID has succeeded on the public relations front to get out its message.

Now, the second section I wasn't so thrilled with. In this section, Miller seems to diverge a bit from the topics at hand and he seeks to find a way to explain how, even if evolution is to believed, we can still find meaning in life, that we don't necessarily have to be amoral creatures, and even that perhaps we *were* intended to be the product of evolution, or at least that in some sense evolution almost necessarily led to us. For my tastes, this section sounded a little too religious still, or at least spiritual (he calls his belief "evolutionary cosmology"). It's understandable and admirable that Miller might want to address this concern that people have about evolution being "bad" for these reasons (and I have no doubt he believes these things himself, given that this is the subject of his other book, "Finding Darwin's God"), but I couldn't help but feel that this was some desperate attempt to address ID's claims that ID is the "meaningful" theory, while evolution is "meaningless." In some sense, I simply want to say, "Yeah, so what? We *aren't* special and we *don't* have some preordained purpose. Big deal!" but apparently that's just not a good enough answer. But to use evolution and science in order to justify our existence seems like a bit of a stretch. You'll notice in these chapters that the scientific data of the previous chapters has disappeared. This is more of a discussion section.

In fact, this section almost seems unnecessary in that it seeks to justify our existence on Earth in the face of a so-called indifferent process of evolution. What Miller seems to overlook, though, is that evolution is simply a theory on how species have evolved over time. It does *not* attempt to explain how life was created to begin with. But in this section, Miller expands his focus to include the creation of life. In trying to defend evolution, he seems to unnecessarily reach beyond the limits of what evolution even claims to describe.

But overall, it's an excellent refutation of ID, as well as a very eye-opening discussion of just what the ID movement is *really* trying to do to science. Great reading for anyone interested in these topics.