Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God

I'm not so sure. I'd like to see an unequivocal statement from Miller, especially since near the end of the article he says, "In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are."--Percy

If 'theistic evolutionist' just means someone who believes in God but affirms evolution, I'd say Miller qualifies. But he doesn't believe in any spirit-guided evolutionary process, according to his writing.I read Miller's book, but I don't own a copy of it and can't quote the relevant passages. I recall he wasn't in league with those who say "evolution is God's way of creating," because as a cell biologist he couldn't look at the universe as anything other than self-sustaining. A God who creates through a process whereby the vast majority of his species go extinct, and precarious environmental fitness is paid for by an immense amount of death and waste, is obviously unworthy of worship. Miller claims that when quantum indeterminacy put Newton's clockwork universe to rest, it changed the rules for both believers and atheists: no longer could we say that all things were predetermined in a domino cascade of cause-and-effect, but gone too was the notion that science could unlock any earthly mystery.I'm not a believer, so I don't know how Miller can live with this materialistic conception of the universe and still believe in a loving God. However, his appreciation of the philosophical use of the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism is ingenious: this is the only way believers can say God creates but has no purpose or intent in mind, because the process that actually does the work is so open-ended and versatile.regards,
Esteban Hambre

One characteristic of GOD as I see it is that GOD has no beginning or end. GOD is, has been, and will be. That could get very boring. Might not GOD set up a simulation with a given set of beginning states and a set of rules, simply to watch and see how it all turns out? Might not GOD be amazed and fascinated by what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future in this Universe?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar,I'm not a believer. I already said I was impressed by Miller's expertise in exposing the way Dawkins and Dennett (both of whose work I greatly admire) often lack the scientific objectivity they so highly tout. However, that's a far cry from playing the sort of religious parlor game you suggest in your post. Typing the word God in upper-case letters doesn't make it any more comprehensible an idea. And ascribing the characteristics of a bored tinkerer to the idea doesn't do it much justice either.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I am new to this board, and this is my first post. More than likely no one will read it since it appears this thread ended quite awhile ago. But I guess I'll try and see what happens:I believe Millers book serves a vital purpose for opening up lines of communication between scientists and creationists.I have had dozens of conversations and email discussions with friends who are extremely intelligent and yet for some bizarre reason cannot except evolutionary principles. I have been fortunate on a couple of occasions to introduce them to Miller, and it allowed us to have much more fruitful conversations.The reason for this is that Miller creates a safe haven for those who believe in the supernatural. because it allows them to see that evolution can coexixt quite nicely in thier universe.Anyway, as I said this is my first post, so I think I'll end it here and see what happens!

Welcome! It is an interesting topic; and by adding a post you have "bumped" it to the top of the list of thread with new posts. I think you are right. Miller seems to present a view of God's divine creative activity as something continuous, expressed throughout time in sustaining of the natural world. Miller thus does not need to modify or deny any findings of conventional evolutionary biology, but sees it as a study of the natural world, created and sustained by God.Whether Miller himself describes this as "theistic evolution" I do not know; but he is often described by others in those terms. A more detailed view of his theological perspective is available at Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation. In this essay, Miller endorses the term continuous creationist as expressing his view. Here is an extract: Miller credits this term to: Cheers -- Sylas

Welcocme to EvC, Bug.See you did get noticed. Just be careful what you say, since it will all get noticed.Enjoy.

LOL!Thanks for the welcome Sylas and Nosy. Sure is a wealth of information on this site, and tons of knowledgable people to share information with! Way more knowlegable than me..unliklely I would tempt to take anybody head on, but it's nice to know that a place such as this exists for gathering information and asking questions.BTW, just by way of introduction, I am a clinical microbiologist, hence the choice of username. The job allows very little time for any independent research,so I basically just watch the bugs grow and than try to figure out the best way to kill them! One thing I am curious about though is how the copying quotes function operates. I'm sure you've probably explained it a million times and won't ask you to repeat it, but if you could just direct me to where I can find out that would be great.Again, thanks for the warm welcome!This message has been edited by Bugtracker, 12-16-2004 02:32 PM

copy and paste just like most programs Then when you are editing there is a UBB Code is ON link to the left which tells you how to format your post.Or, as noted, use the raw text button to see how someone else did it.

Check out Message 1 for a collections of hints. Use the raw text button at the bottom of any post to see how others format things.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

Whether Miller himself describes this as "theistic evolution" I do not know; but he is often described by others in those terms. A more detailed view of his theological perspective is available at Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation. In this essay, Miller endorses the term continuous creationist as expressing his view. Here is an extract:

​

The term "continuous creationist" has been used by both Wilcox and Moltmann as a useful label for a fully theistic view of creation involving a long uninterrupted creative history. According to this view God is continuously active in His creation through the processes that we investigate with our sciences.

---

Sorry Sylas... but that one is Keith Miller not Ken Miller of Finding Darwin's God fame.

Oops... thanks! I had a closer look. Keith Miller sounds like an interesting person. I had not heard of him previously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSgI've only watched the very beginning. The whole thing apparently runs almost 2 hours.Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.

NOVA Online/Odyssey of Life/How Did We Get Here? A Cyber DebateGiving credit where credit is due, I found the above via Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.In general, that site has quite a repository of resources. See the column at the left of the page.Moose

These are probably worth reposting at Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet.AbE: Oh, never mind about the 2nd one, I didn't realize it was a debate via letters.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Reverse course.Edited by Percy, : Clarify.