Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God

I discovered this via Pharyngula: Coyne on the compatibility of science and religionJerry Coyne's article Seeing and Believing is a critique of the books Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson and Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Kenneth R. Miller.Miller's response is Thoughts of an "Ardent Theist," or Why Jerry Coyne is Wrong.I fully confess, I haven't yet fully read the above cited material, much less the Giberson and Miller books in question. But I thought I'd put this out for whatever reference value it might have (a "Links and Information" type message).Moose

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.

I'll note that I have not read Miller's book, so bear that in mind when reading my comments. I don't see that as actually contradicting the earlier statement.Most people take a theistic evolutionist to be a theist who

1. is an evolutionist, and
2. who believes that God has guided the direction of evolution by stepping in and making sure that the "right" mutations happened on schedule.

One can, however, be a theist who believes that God kept a hands-off approach to the details of how species evolved, though he designed the whole system at the start. I take Miller to be the latter kind of theist/evolutionist. To say, as in that page 54 comment, that evolution affects religion is a different matter. I think he is just commenting on the fact that many members of his religion are not happy with evolution, so he has to keep defending it. I suspect that you are dumbfounded because you are so familiar with seeing evolution bad-mouthed by creationists.It seems to me, though, that creationists are denying their own creationism when they object to evolution. For, if one believes that God is creator of all, then it follows that he is creator of evolutionary processes. The anti-evolution creationists seem to be saying "I believe that God created half of what I see around me. He created the parts that I like, but I refuse to believe that he created the parts that I don't like." I suspect that you are misreading Miller there (though keep in mind that I have not myself read Miller's book).I read Miller as saying, in that quote, something like: "As a believer in God as creator of all, I marvel at the absolute brilliance God showed in his design of the evolution system."In short, while you read Miller as saying something about the nature of God, I read that as saying something about the nature of evolution, and about evolution being counted as an enormous credit to a God brilliant enough to come up with such an idea.

Why do you suppose that he "forgot" what he thinks?Do you believe that you can read minds, or do you have some sort of rationale for your claim?---As you appeal to Christians specifically to clear up your confusion, I am disqualified from replying to the rest of your post.

quote:

---

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.

---

Interestingly Richard Dawkins is also accused of having little knowledge of Christianity when he argues against belief in God - and his arguments are more developed than the simple argument that evolution disproves Christianity. I suspect that it is your knowledge of Christianity that is limited, mistakenly thinking that the doctrines of your sect define Christian belief.Since however, you offer no explanation of your objections it is impossible to know exactly where the problem is.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, he doesn't. The point appears to be quite simple. To give God full credit for the creation you must acknowledge the full glory and majesty of that creation. By lessening the creation you implicitly lessen the creator. There's no need for any great understanding of Christianity.

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.

You know the Mind of God that well, hum? Wow, you must be really something.

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.

That's a strange thing to say. Are you rejecting the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient? I'm sure he listens. He obviously doesn't agree with the views of some Christians. I'm sure that Miller understands that science is fallible. All scientists understand that.It's not science that is in first place. But the way the world is, has to be given high place. For that is the direct creation of God. The biblical text is secondary, for that involves the hand of fallible man. The text you quoted does not show that. It only shows that Miller puts reason and evidence above the claims of Henry Morris. It seems to me that it is Henry Morris and other founders of 20th century creationism, who have bent Christianity beyond recognition. Yet that part is already sufficient to account for all of biological diversity. The physics in Genesis 1 is badly wrong. Why can you make excuses for Genesis, and read it as symbolic? But you apparently won't do that for Genesis 2, 3.I guess it is all the "original sin" issue. Yet the doctrine of original sin is mostly made up theology with very little real biblical support. It is not universally accepted as a required part of Christian belief. Why would they be furious. The question of origins has not been settled by science, so there is room for a diversity of views. Moreover, most atheists are not anti-theist, they just don't adopt a theistic view for themselves.

The point is that even though Dawkins arguments are MORE sophisticated than simply arguing that Christianity is incompatible with evolution his arguments are still rejected on the supposed grounds that his understanding of Christianity is too poor, his concept of God too anthropomorphic. This contradicts your rejection of Miller's views.

quote:

---

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.

---

I didn't say anything about Christian denominations hating each other, I simply said that your knowledge of Christianity was too narrow. (Although there is a good deal of hatred for Catholicism among extreme Protestants),.

quote:

---

he 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

---

I think that you will find that belief in a literal Adam is not something shared by all Christians. Certainly the view that Adam was physically created is unnecessary (the official Catholic view is happy with idea that the physical form of human beings is the product of evolution, for instance).

quote:

---

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 AiG "Creatiion Museum" is there to support Young Earth Creationism. Do you REALLY believe that all Christian denominations support YEC doctrine ?

quote:

---

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.

---

You still haven't explicitly said where - in your view - the conflict between evolution and Christianity is. The only point you explicitly mention is belief in the existence of an Adam (but the Catholic idea that God supplied a soul to Adam rather than physically creating him goes a good way to getting around that). However, you also hint that you believe that Christians must accept YEC doctrine, which goes a good deal further.

quote:

---

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.

---

Dawkins believes in BOTH the "glory and majesty" and the "blind pitiless indifference" of nature. There's no contradiction between the two. And don't forget that Dawkins has no interest in finding ways to reconcile evolution and Christian belief at all. Why should he want to help Miller in that endeavour ?

And you are, as usual, wrong. Does that even mean anything? You seem a little confused as to what his message is. I suggest that you read both paragraphs again until you understand them.In one, he points out, rightly, that there is no particularly theistic way to be a biologist, a chemist, or any other type of scientist.In the other, he points out, rightly, that evolution has impacted religion.By pretending that the first paragraph says that "there is NO relationship between evolution and religion", you have managed to create a contradiction that exists in your head but not in his writings, since the first paragraph actually says what it says and not some nonsense that you've made up.I hope this clarifies matters for you.

Ah yes, scientists like Pat Robertson: Wait, he's not a scientist, is he? Remind me again what job he does. Yeah ... the minor differences between them are so trivial and inconsequential that, in retrospect, they probably weren't really worth burning one another alive over.

No. Henry Morris is very much in keeping with interpretations that have existed in Christianity throughout all its epochs. Christianity is a creationist religion, and has always included "young earthers". It also has a long tradition of ignoring and /or attempting to suppress evidence and observations that are considered problematic for it.On the other hand, it can be argued that Kenneth Miller represents other equally old traditions.There has never been such a thing as a Christian concept of god and creation. There have always been many.But my point is that it's wrong to view Morris as "bending" or distorting Christianity any more than its other interpreters.

quote:

---

"There are not myriads of myriads of years, even though Plato said such a period had elapsed between the deluge and his own time, . . . The world is not uncreated nor is there spontaneous production of everything, as Pythagoras and the others have babbled; instead the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth. . . . The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.29 ... If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 or 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands of years as it was for Plato . . . and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books."

---

c. 170 AD — Theophilus of Antioch

There has long been some sort of creationism. But the modern strident YEC version is quite a bit different from the more traditional versions.The Wikipedia article suggests that the modern version originated with George McCready Price and was modified by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. That's pretty much consistent with other reports about modern young earth creationism (such as the book by Ron Numbers).I'm old enough to have been been a member of an evangelical church before the 1961 publication of the Morris and Whitcomb book, and young earth creationism never came up.