I doubt that God would frown upon Ghandi, just because he didn't partake in the Judo/Christian/Islam axis of religious beliefs.
Off topic, but since you took the time to adjust your signature:
This depends on your definition of partake. He partook of Christianity more than most Christians I know and said that if Christians lived the Sermon on the Mount, he might be one. He compared the Sermon on the Mount to his beloved Bhagavad Gita.
I doubt God would frown upon him, either. Would that Christians gave themselves to Jesus' teachings the way Ghandi did!
Christianity: The only religion in the world where believing in the founder of the religion is all that's required; you can ignore his teachings.
Miller doesn't think evolution is God's way of creating
Help me here. What are you saying? Miller believes in evolution, and he believes God created everything. So what does he believe is God's way of creating? I can't think of any interpretation oy this statement that makes sense to me.
The Darwinian mechanism is simply the only way we have freedom, exactly what we'd expect to see in a universe where we were not expected.
Huh? Help. I'm not understanding this at all. "The only way we have freedom"? What does that mean?
Therefore, evolution does not support the position of the materialists.
But isn't this exactly what Miller was arguing against?
I don't think this is what Miller was arguing against. Miller was arguing against evolution supporting the position of the materialists or the creationists. It doesn't support any philosophical position at all.
I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.
It seems that again a limit is being placed on what we "can" know. We've only been around as a species for roughly 50k yrs. We are still young.
Again, I don't think he's saying this at all. I think he's saying that God ought to be found in what we know, not in what we don't know. He specifically says science keeps explaining all sorts of things that creationists said were unexplainable. He thinks if God created us with reason, then reason ought to help us find God, not eliminate God's hiding places (God hiding in the gaps of our knowledge).
So, there is no limit on what we can know. He's just saying that what we learn ought to help us understand God better.
Here's a zany idea. Why don't you read Miller's essay?
Sheesh, sorry. What you wrote didn't look like something that would be explained by his essay. It looked like something very short and thus hard to follow. I figured a couple extra sentences would explain what you were saying.
I just finished Miller's essay before I found your reply to me, and you're correct, of course, that it explained what you were saying.