Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God

BUMP! I’m fairly new to EvC - yesterday evening I proposed a new thread on Kenneth Miller’s book, and was pointed to this one by administration. This thread was started in 2002, so many of the posters are now inactive. I’ve read through it all, and I’ll respond to what I think is relevant, (not necessarily all tonight) taking into consideration which posters are active or inactive. But first, as administration pointed me here, he said this, and it probably should be the first thing addressed; Miller confirms this statement;

quote:

---

"I always reject the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a 'theistic chemist,' have you?"

---

He’s only human, he has moods, can be forgetful, and can obviously get tired of constantly fielding difficult questions about his duel beliefs. Let’s look at what he forgot he wrote in his book, page 54 (in the paperback version);

quote:

---

It would be nice to pretend, as many of my scientific friends do, that the study of evolution can be carried out without having any effect on religion. In their own way, they might envy other scientific fields — say, organic CHEMISTRY or oceanography — that seem to barrel ahead at full speed without ever being cast into the arena to grapple with the Almighty. However one might hope that to be the case, and much of the scientific establishment surely wishes it were, the clash between evolution and religion is not about to go away anytime soon.

---

It has not gone away. The combined term makes sense if there is a clash — if someone believes in both and attempts to reconcile them as he does. He is widely thought of as a theistic evolutionist — a google search on his name and theistic evolution clearly shows it, and he makes a really good living at it. His occasional desire to pretend to not be considered what he actually is matters little, in a discussion about him or his book.I’ll now repeat what I intended to be an opening post on this subject, and we’ll see if this old thread is thoroughly resurrected.Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology and public school textbook author who is fairly well known throughout the scientific community, is one of the few, if not the only, Christian (Catholic) theistic evolutionist who has written a book on the creation/evolution controversy. The book, called Finding Darwin’s God — A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution, is one that I read a few years ago, and I still have a paperback copy.He opens chapter 8 with the following statement;

quote:

---

Ironically, when I have publicly advanced the idea that God is compatible with evolution, I find that my agnostic and atheistic colleagues are generally comfortable with such ideas, but many believers are dumbfounded.

---

This goes along with what I see from posters on forums such as these. As a believer, yes I am dumb-founded just like he says, and up to now I’ve only had atheists attempt to explain this rationale to me. Their attempts have come up short, largely because atheists show little knowledge of Christianity. In reading Miller’s book, I find that he also shows little knowledge of Christianity. Almost at the end of the same chapter, chapter 8, he makes this statement;

quote:

---

only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves.

---

If anyone considers that a quote mine, I’ll be glad to add some surrounding statements to show that it’s not — it’s central to the lesser statements around it. He appears to be saying that evolutionists know more about the nature of the Christian God than do Bible scholars. I’d like for a Christian theistic evolutionist on these forums to address this. To clarify for me if that is in fact exactly what he is saying, and their knowledge/beliefs of Christianity to back it up in a detailed way, detail that I didn’t see in his book.

A hands off designer? It doesn’t make logical sense. And in defending it, all he’s focused on is the evolution, he doesn’t seem to listen to the views from the religious standpoint. That’s understandable if he thinks that science is the only, or main, source of knowledge — that it’s in first place, and religion has to fall in line behind it. I’ll c/p part of what was c/p’d from the book in message #16 of this thread;

quote:

---

(Miller writes) Nonetheless, he [Henry Morris] looked me straight in the eyes. "Ken, you're intelligent, you're well-meaning, and you're energetic. But you are also young, and you don't realize what's at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren't the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes."

​

Indeed I did. Morris continued so that I could get a feeling for what that ultimate authority was. "Scripture tells us what the right conclusion is. And if science, momentarily, doesn't agree with it, then we have to keep working until we get the right answer. But I have no doubts as to what that answer will be." Morris then excused himself, and I was left to ponder what he had said. I had sat down thinking the man a charlatan, but I left appreciating the depth, the power; and the sincerity of his convictions. Nonetheless, however one might admire Morris's strength of character; convictions that allow science to be bent beyond recognition are not merely unjustified - they are dangerous in the intellectual and even in the moral sense, because they corrupt and compromise the integrity of human reason.

---

Miller obviously puts human reason above anything in Christianity. His secular convictions that allow Christianity to be bent beyond recognition are also unjustified and dangerous to many in the general public who provide tax money to publicly fund scientific research. No, it’s because I’ve seen Christianity in general bad-mouthed by evolutionists! The word evolution has multiple meanings, it’s always necessary to clarify it in discussions such as these it seems. Most creationists don’t deny all evolution, they’re fine with the micro parts, the build up of immunity to diseases, the changes within kinds, the parts of evolution which are proven. When creationists object to evolution, it’s almost always a rejection of neo-Darwinism — of common descent, of claims of what happened millions of years ago. Claims that the book of Genesis is an allegory, that there was no fully formed first man, that there was no original sin by one man, later redeemed by one man. Why aren’t atheists furious at that claim? Creationists claim to see the brilliance of God in nature, in plants and trees and grass and sky and the love between a man & women, parents & children. Miller sees the brilliance of God in all the detail in evolution, and Miller obviously says that atheists are too dense to see that brilliance at all!

I suspect you didn't even completely read what I said, but posters like you always provide great opportunities for challenging word processing.Let’s see what I can do.The first paragraph of his that I quoted was from a webpage dated in June, 2008. The first version (hardcover) of his book Finding Darwin’s God was copyrighted in 1999. So the first paragraph that I quoted came many years — about 9 years — after the second paragraph that I quoted. Are we clear so far? I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and assume you have this straight in your mind. I’ll now move on to the next phase of a detailed answer to your question.In the first paragraph, he claimed he never heard of anyone described as a theistic chemist, obviously because a person’s religion would have no importance/no relationship on a persons desire or ability to study chemistry. He showed a comparison between that term and the term theistic evolution because he was implying that in exactly the same way, a persons religion has no importance, no relationship, no bearing on a persons desire or ability to study evolution.In the second paragraph (written 9 years earlier, remember) he said it would be nice to PRETEND to be able to study evolution without having an effect (no importance/no relationship) on religion. That there was a clash between evolution and religion. This clash would be the opposite of no importance/no relationship/.The clash would actually indicate an importance, a relationship. In the first paragraph, his message was that there is NO relationship between evolution and religion, and in second paragraph his message was that there IS a relationship between evolution and religion. Still confused? I’m sure you are, so I’ll continue. When he wrote his book in 1999, he indicated that there was sometimes a controversy between science and religion, that many people who take an interest in one, often tend to question the other. He elaborated on it quite often throughout the book, giving examples of how people like Richard Dawkins use science as a weapon against religion. Or how people like Henry Morris question the exact location of where the line should be drawn, between actual science, and a godless scientific philosophy about events from millions of years ago.
In his more current paragraph from 2008, he simply disregarded all that, by implying that he was mystified by the term theistic evolutionist, like the term wasn’t necessary. Since there are atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins, and Biblical creationists like Henry Morris, if someone claims common ground between them, then the term theistic evolutionist fits perfectly. (the term common ground appears on the front of his book, just under the title) A brilliant deduction, we’ll wait and see if any show up. If they fail to clear up my confusion, it will be up to the reader to determine if that indicates that I may not be the one who is actually confused. If the reader is a militant atheist, I have a prediction whose side they will be on.

They may be developed with his views of how evolution works (his specialty) but they’re not developed from a Christian standpoint. I’ve seen his mocking of Christianity, and he shows no knowledge of it — it’s simply another carbon copy of the mocking that has been going around the scientific community for at least half a century now. You’re probably not alone, the belief that different Christian denominations hate each other has been erroneously put forth by the scientific community for decades now. The fact is, ALL Christian denominations basic doctrines are exactly the same — that Christ was the true son of God, that he was one man who lived and died for the sinful nature of humans that originated from one man, the first fully formed man, Adam. As I recently pointed out in another thread, the Billy Graham crusades, as well as the Answers In Genesis creation museum in Kentucky are only two examples of many, of Christian organizations that transcend all Christian denominations.The reason different Christian denominations exist is because of disagreements in details of how worship services and daily behaviors please God the most. The way a church is governed, the role of clergy, the marriage of clergy, the behaviors concerning the sacraments, the liturgy, baptism, missionary works, are just some of the types of things that cause Christians to organize themselves under different roofs.The basics of Christianity are always present in any denomination, original sin in the first fully formed man, Christ’s birth without an earthly father (outside of natural laws) his resurrection, also outside of natural laws, and of course, the importance of the 10 commandments. The current trend for some well known Bible teachers, or even the leadership of entire denominations to cave in to the scientific community and begin bending, shaping, and compromising Christianity to appease them is an unfortunate reality, and authors like Miller are partly to blame for it. It happens because the scientific community is politically powerful enough to gain the position of the ‘ruling realm’, strong enough to supersede something traditional and important to the general population like the 10 commandments, when it comes to decisions involving traditional morality, like abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, embryonic stem cell research, many other things. The scientific community wants religion to be number 2 in these matters. I hope these last three posts of mine have clarified my position some more. I’ve never had a detailed discussion with a genuine theistic evolutionist like Miller — I hope one will come along on this thread. We’ll wait and see. Glory and majesty, of what Dawkins calls "blind, pitiless indifference". How can two people see such differences in the same science, and show little or no desire to discuss it with each other? I'm not necessarily talking about Miller vs Dawkins, I'm talking about theistic evolutionists in general vs atheists in general.

No — if he’s omnipotent and omniscient, he’s ALWAYS hands on! If his hands are off at any time, then he’s not omnipotent and omniscient. In his evaluation of his conversation with Henry Morris, it's apparent that he doesn't listen too carefully. In the book, he didn’t show a basic knowledge of Christianity. One basic is that God is living, but that’s all that he acknowledges. He doesn’t show knowledge of, or interest in, two more very important things about God, that he is intelligent, and that he is purposive. And most of them think that scripture is fallible as well. In many political decisions, one has to be number one, and one has to be number two. A ruling realm, and a secondary realm. Miller obviously considers science the ruler, as do the atheists like Dawkins. It is a basic of Christianity to believe that biblical text is written by God, that God inspired its writers directly in a way above and beyond anything else he’s ever inspired humans to do. He’s active in the world, and Christians believe he inspires a lot of important things, including the U.S. founding documents IMO. (they promote free will, he promotes free will) but the authorship of scriptures were on a level of directness unlike anything else. The only input from man in scripture was the personalities of the writers. There is a reason the final book (Revelation) makes clear that it is the end. And also a reason why Jesus himself didn’t write any scripture. It would obviously be considered more important than the rest. But Morris’s claims are clearly backed up by scripture. It’s actually loaded with Biblical support. I believe that all current Christian rejections of original sin came as a result of Christianity being bent to fit evolution. Of course not, they need funding from theists. They’re satisfied as long as theism doesn’t get in their way. Displays of the Ten Commandments, theistic beliefs on embryonic stem cell research, on homosexuality, abortion, on many other things, tend to get in their way.

Is that officially noted somewhere on the internet? I’d like to see it. Also, I can’t find a single official Catholic review of this book anywhere. There are several reviews on the back cover of my paperback from scientific sources, but none from Catholic sources. I can’t find any Amazon reviews of it from a Catholic source. I’m not saying that none exist, but if no one on this thread can point me to one, then it’s safe to say they don’t exist. Why are they hard to find/non existent? The word young isn’t necessary. It’s not called the Young Earth Creationist Museum. The one single dimension of time that humans are limited to isn’t accepted as a measure of all of reality by Christians the same way it is by atheists. I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word young. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that. Concerning Adam’s soul vs a literal person, That’s a big leap, one that reduces Genesis (and all of Christianity) to an allegory.Suppose you watch a violent movie, Scarface for example, one where there’s a lot of killing going on. Then watch some of the actual film footage of 9-11-2001. In some of that footage as I recall, there’s telephone/radio communications going on in a small group of officials on a ground floor in the area, and you can hear falling bodies hitting the ground, and adjoining roofs. To me there is no comparison in the reality of that vs the allegory of an actor pretending like he’s shooting someone on a move set. Most anyone can quickly forget Hollywood movies much quicker than they forget the reality of 9-11. People making public policy, deciding whether or not to believe what atheists are telling them about our purposeless existence, are going to assign the atheists completely different positions of authority, depending on how how they view the historical account of Genesis, if it was reality, or if it was an allegory to make some point, a point that is subject to countless different interpretations. Dawkins is one of the few prominent atheists who doesn’t care — he’s actually honest about who he is. William Provine is another, he puts it like this;

quote:

---

I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. ~ William Provine

---

Most atheists want to help Miller. It’s always about the money.

I’ll admit that I made what his first paragraph contained more complicated than it actually was, leading you to do the same. Lets look again at his words and compare them with your wording, and see what we have;

quote:

---

"I always reject the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a 'theistic chemist,' have you?"

---

All he was really talking about, was a term used to describe a person. He was referring to terms that describe people, not "ways to be". Notice that he used the word term twice. Since he also referred to anyone being described, he wasn’t getting near ways to be. His paragraph was addressing one thing, how a person’s belief (or worldview) is referred to by a term. He knows that there are religious people that reject common descent evolution, (a creationist like Henry Morris) and he knows there are evolutionists who reject all religion. (an atheist like Richard Dawkins) His book written 9 years earlier indicates that he accepts those terms for people like Morris or Dawkins, he used them many times throughout the book, but doesn’t want any equally descriptive term for himself. His book claimed to seek common ground between religion, and atheism. He knows that there is a term for someone like Morris (creationist) and he knows that there is a term for someone like Dawkins (atheist) He only claimed that he rejected a term for himself, while showing no indication that he had any alternative term for himself in mind. Admittedly, his book showed his lack of interest in applying a term to himself. Atheists, as well as theistic evolutionists, always seem to imply neutrality. That there’s a neutral study of science that a person’s worldview doesn’t affect. It’s not true.Now a look again at the second paragraph;

quote:

---

It would be nice to pretend, as many of my scientific friends do, that the study of evolution can be carried out without having any effect on religion. In their own way, they might envy other scientific fields — say, organic CHEMISTRY or oceanography — that seem to barrel ahead at full speed without ever being cast into the arena to grapple with the Almighty. However one might hope that to be the case, and much of the scientific establishment surely wishes it were, the clash between evolution and religion is not about to go away anytime soon.

---

And that many scientists pretend that it has not. In that paragraph, he didn’t say one way or the other that it was all religions fault. So you created another contradiction by claiming the first paragraph was about ways to be a scientist, which it was not. Then you over-simplifed the second paragraph, ignoring the fact that it was about pretending on the part of scientists, or where the blame for the clash actually lies. You weren’t much help.

Doomed either way haha — that’s a good way to put it!Psychology, and other fields dealing with human behavior, are saturated with evolutionary thinking. Science (mostly atheists in science) propose that humans are simply evolved animals, and this leads to the evaluation of human behavioral problems on an animalistic basis. Many Christians don’t believe that experimentation with monkeys is good guidance in dealing with human problems. When evolution proponents proclaim that studying evolution is no different than studyingplumbing, the dishonesty is obvious to many. But other people, particularly young people who are not yet firm in an atheistic worldview, are often fooled.

And Miller’s brand of Christianity is largely to blame for it. The Bible has warnings about false teachings.

If you consider science the first word in reality, it’s not surprising that you’re eventually going to get all the way to the point that you describe. The point where you consider atheists to be Biblical authorities. Does the Catholic church consider atheists to be Biblical authorities? Or is that just the opinions of some Catholics like yourself? Any idea of the percentages of Catholics who consider atheists to be Biblical authorities? Have you read Miller’s book?

I looked at it. But I don’t believe that all those scientists and philosophers from ancient times till present, all combined, have developed an authority that surpasses the authority in the 66 book Bible. And we never have an assurance that today's scientists follow those methods 100% perfectly all the time. So you don’t believe the Bible was written by or inspired by God? It would then HAVE to be in a secondary position of authority to the ruling realm of science then, wouldn’t it?If you do that’s fine, it’s a worldview clash that we have to agree to disagree on. But my point is that once the Bible is declared an allegory, it then has no more power over naturalist philosophy than it would if it were simply fiction, as atheists insist it is. A better way to put it would be that evolution is a cultural phenomenon, one that is subject to the truth of scripture, just like everything else in human culture.