Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God

I am getting close to finishing the reading of Kenneth R. Millers - Finding Darwin's God.There is much online, that well covers this book, so I'm not going to try doing my own apraisal. I think I mentioned it somewhere before, but once again, I highly recommend this book to all on both sides of the debate.Rather than cite specific links, I just recommend going to the Google search, and looking at the links listed there (isn't Google wonderful!). http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&q=%22Finding+Darwin%27s+God%22Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-25-2002]

Anyone interested in turning this into a discussion thread on Finding Darwin's God? I've had a copy sitting on my shelf for a year now, and a discussion might get me off my duff and read it.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Anyone interested in turning this into a discussion thread on Finding Darwin's God? I've had a copy sitting on my shelf for a year now, and a discussion might get me off my duff and read it.

​

--Percy

---

Personally, my retention of read material is often too poor for me to get into much of a detailed discussion (and the book must get returned to the library). For all the good my memory does me, I would probably have gotten as much out of the book, by just reading the on-line commentary (such as listed at that Google page).Mind like a very rusty steel trap Moose
(NAM - No Access Memory)------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Memory aside (I know the feeling Moose - hopefully we subconsciously absorb some of it), what was the basic conclusion? From the past I got the feeling that Darwin accepted that God was involved at some point. But his agony in publishing was that he didn't want to personally create such a furore? Is that right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Memory aside (I know the feeling Moose - hopefully we subconsciously absorb some of it), what was the basic conclusion? From the past I got the feeling that Darwin accepted that God was involved at some point. But his agony in publishing was that he didn't want to personally create such a furore? Is that right?

---

Just some brief comments right now - I'll try to prepare some more detailed comments, to be posted later.Miller does brush upon Darwin's spiritual beliefs a bit, but that isn't at all the focus of the book.The subtitle of Miller's book is A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution. As I see it, Miller essentially is an OEC, with the evolution of the universe, and everything of the universe, as understood by science, being God's most elegant process of creation (let's keep young earth creationism out of this topic).I'll be back with more, later.Regards,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Moose writes:

---

As I see it, Miller essentially is an OEC...

---

?????--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Moose writes:

---

As I see it, Miller essentially is an OEC...

---

​

?????

​

--Percy

---

Maybe broaden that to an OAC. Miller accepts the scientificly recognised natural processes as being God's method of creation. A fusion of his recognition of the scientific realities and his religious faith.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Here is Miller's review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.htmlThis is much like Miller's discussion of Behe's views, as presented in Finding Darwin's God.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Maybe broaden that to an OAC. Miller accepts the scientificly recognised natural processes as being God's method of creation. A fusion of his recognition of the scientific realities and his religious faith.

​

Moose

---

Elaborating on the above a bit:By labeling Miller as a creationist, I mean only that his religious faith is that God is ultimately behind it all.He stresses that, he in no way claims to have scientific evidence in support of God's existance or actions.He is not in any way a believer in any "creation science".Added by edit #2, on 6/16/02: I had used "OEC" in a very general sense of the term. "Theistic Evolutionist" is the far more accurate term.MooseAdded by edit #1: I should have said this much earlier. The book Finding Darwin's God" was recommended to me from several different sources. To me, the most significant one was Dr. Ojakangas, the geology professor of the Precambrian geology class I have recently completed. I am convinced of, and much impressed by his deep Christian faith. In my view, persons such as Miller and Ojakangas are much stronger promoters of Christianity than are the creationists who are in denial of worldly realities which are the true record of God's creation.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-30-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Elaborating on the above a bit:

​

By labeling Miller as a creationist, I mean only that his religious faith is that God is ultimately behind it all.

​

He stresses that, he in no way claims to have scientific evidence in support of God's existance or actions.

​

He is not in any way a believer in any "creation science".

​

Moose

​

---

This sounds like a philosophical approach often called Primary and secondary cause where a prime mover (in this case God) is the indirect basis for everything as the primary cause with the secondary cause being everything that we can observe, ie nature and the natural world.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Moose writes:

---

In my view, persons such as Miller and Ojakangas are much stronger promoters of Christianity than are the creationists who are in denial of worldly realities which are the true record of God's creation.

---

Extremely well put.--Percy

Can't non-Christians use his views too? I am not a Christian, and I have his book (which is truly wonderful) but I find his theology uncompatible with mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Can't non-Christians use his views too? I am not a Christian, and I have his book (which is truly wonderful) but I find his theology uncompatible with mine.

---

My personal thoughts are that pinning a certain name on God, and inserting him into a particular religious nich is a very shakey proposition. Whatever your personal theological idea of your creator is, is quite likely equally valid.Perhaps some greater detail on your incompatibility findings would make for interesting discussion.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - MaybeI doubt that God would frown upon Ghandi, just because he didn't partake in the Judo/Christian/Islam axis of religious beliefs.

​

By edit: Special modification to my standard signature message!

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-31-2002]

Before we can discuss "GOD" and what Miller or Darwin think about it, and If i start to read this then it would be nice to take up the dusty book which every ever one, but the point about Darwin and Publishing I am wondering not about Drapper vs White etc phoniex etc etc but rather that (if???) Charles Darwin felt pressure to publish becasue of Wallace's correspondence. I have read this is so but I have come to mistrust from family feuds even what is plain to read for it tooks years for me to no longer HEAR the sound of my grandfather intoning "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-03-2002]

I've pulled this in from another topic, at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=27&m=5#5There Dr_Tazimus_maximus comments:

quote:

---

And while social evolution in some ways mimics the effects seen by natural selection they really are not the same and act by different mechanisms.

---

It's been a while since I read this, so I'm not prepared to do much comment right now, but I thought this was a good intro into a subtopic of this topic.I think Taz is making a comment that agrees with a important point of Miller's.Miller breaks with the biological evolution thoughts of some, who are advocating that social evolution is indeed part of biological evolution.I believe there was also a recent article in Discover, relating to the social behavior of birds, which is also relevent to this subtopic.I scanned the entire book into the computer (ain't big hard drives wonderful). Will re-read more, before making further comment.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe