Here is a long review in the Christian Science Monitor of the theistic
evolutionist biologist Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God" at
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/12/23/fp14s1-csm.shtml.
To make it easier to distinguish my comments, I have cast it is the format
of a post, with the reviewer's, comments prefaced by "CSM>".
I have not yet read Miller's book, so I am here taking the reviewer's
assessment of it at face value.
Steve
CSM>Christian Science Monitor
>
>[...]
>
>THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1999
>
>[...]
>
>The evolution of a controversy
>Liz Marlantes
>
>FINDING DARWIN'S GOD: A SCIENTIST'S SEARCH FOR
>COMMON GROUND BETWEEN GOD AND EVOLUTION
>By By Kenneth Miller
>Cliff Street Books
>288 pp., $25
Darwin's God (if he ever actually had one), was at best a deistic God, and
at worst a mere placeholder for his ignorance, and definitely not the
revealed God of the Bible, which Darwin explicitly repudiated:
"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some
wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the
origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." (Darwin C.,
letter to J. D. Hooker, 29 March 1863, in Wilson E.O., et. al., "Life on
Earth", 1975, p594)
Therefore Darwin's "God" doesn't seem *worth* "finding"!
[...]
CSM>When rumors of Charles Darwin's theory about the origin of species first
>began to circulate in British society during the mid-19th century, one
>aghast gentleman pronounced: "Let us hope that it is not true. But if it is,
>let us hope that it does not become generally known!"
This was actually a *lady*, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester:
"The theory of evolution was a sensational one in 1859, the year The
Origin of Species was published, because it seemed to remove the need for
a direct link between god and man. There is a story of one Victorian lady
(the wife of the Bishop of Worcester) saying to another about Darwin's
work: 'My dear, let us hope that it is not true - but, if it is, let us pray
that it does not become generally known!'" (Jones S., "The Language of the
Genes", 1994, p195)
And in view of the immense social upheaval going on in England at the
time, which was teetering on the brink of a French-style revolution (see
Desmond and Moore's, "Darwin") it is not that silly a statement.
CSM>Evolution frightened the Victorians because of its apparent threat to
>religion - and it continues to trouble society to this day.
This is superficial. As Desmond and Moore point out, in Darwin's day one
of the major worries about evolution (shared even by Darwin) was that it
would help fuel the radical atheists' calls for political and social revolution.
But there is no doubt that the *Darwinian* version of "evolution",
especially expressed in the anti-design form that Darwin and Huxley
presented it was, and is, a threat to the *Christian* religion:
"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution
and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was catastrophic.
The suggestion that life and man are the result of chance is incompatible
with the biblical assertion of their being the direct result of intelligent
creative activity. Despite the attempt by liberal theology to disguise the
point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be
compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance
and design are antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of evolution
than to any other single factor." (Denton M.J., "Evolution", 1985, p66).
CSM>Although Darwin's
>theory is accepted as fact by virtually all respected scientists
I wonder how many scientists really do accept totally *Darwin's* theory?
On this Reflector it is hard to find an evolutionist (theistic or atheistic) who
will defend *Darwin's* theory. My impression is that what almost all
evolutionists accept is what Ramm called the " vague theory":
"The vague theory is the belief of scientists that evolution has occurred.
The precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution actually works.
There is no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated precise theory of
evolution. If evolution is to " stick" as a scientific theory it must establish
precise theory. In spite of the fact that as yet no precise theory is
forthcoming, the evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague theory.
This is not science at its best..." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture", 1967, p189).
CSM>fewer than
>half of all Americans today believe that humans evolved from an earlier
>species.
The reviewer (or Miller) conflates two separate issues, namely: 1) the
claimed *relationship* of common descent; and 2) whether the Darwinian
*mechanisms* of random mutation and natural selection were sufficient to
account for that claimed relationship. Yet Darwin himself admitted that
common descent alone was not in itself enough but a *mechanism* was
needed to account for it:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their
embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological
succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species
had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from
other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would
be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species
inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of
structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin
C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", [1872],
Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London UK, 6th Edition, 1928,
reprint, p18).
As Denton observes, common descent "is equally compatible with almost
any philosophy of nature" including "creationist":
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where the
phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have
seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic
patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of
descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution
might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or
as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic
or even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any
significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of
nature." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
Clearly God could have created by supernaturally modifying existing
genetic code, which would be *creation* not evolution:
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it
so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of
divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that
theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural
processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged
those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events.
Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject
essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and
deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key
theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some
common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is
just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp187-188).
CSM>If anything, recent events indicate that opposition to evolution may be on
>the rise: Last August, the Kansas School Board voted to remove evolution
>from the state's science curriculum. Oklahoman officials recently ordered
>that all state biology textbooks bear a disclaimer calling evolution "a
>controversial theory." And Kentucky's state education officials decided last
>month to eliminate the word "evolution" from the school curriculum,
>replacing it with the phrase "change over time."
The fact is that "evolution" hardly was in the Kansas state's science
curriculum in order for it to be "removed"! The Kansas Board of Education
actually *increased* the teaching of "evolution" in the state's science
curriculum! Some aspiring historian in 100 years time is probably going to
make this `surprising' discovery and get his Ph.D on the strength of it!
CSM>Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University in Providence,
>R.I., takes these attacks on evolution seriously and believes they call for a
>serious rebuttal. The first half of "Finding Darwin's God" addresses the
>various claims of the creationists, demonstrating why they are, in Miller's
>words, "bad science."
So presumably Miller's "Darwin's God" cannot be the Biblical sort of God
that "the creationists" worship?
CSM>The second half of the book, however, is far more ambitious. After
>carefully establishing that evolution is scientifically true
Since modern day science is based on a philosophy of materialism-
naturalism, "evolution" is *by definition* "scientifically true"! One doesn't
even *need* to establish it. If there is no God, or if He never supoernatural
intervenes in nature, then the *only* explanation left is "evolution"!
CSM>Miller, a
>practicing Roman Catholic, attempts to demonstrate that it is also compatible
>with a belief in God - and that, in fact, it is "the key to understanding our
>relationship with God."
So was the pantheist Teilhard de Chardin "a practicing Roman Catholic"
and indeed a priest. Being a practicing Roman Catholic (or even a
practicing Baptist) unfortunately does not mean much these days!
IMHO anyone who claims that something not taught in the Bible is "the
key to understanding our relationship with God" is automatically suspect.
Hoekema points out that it is a distinctive trait of a cult to claim to have
"an extra-Scriptural source of authority":
"An Extra-Scriptural Source of Authority. As the first of these distinctive
traits of the cult, I instance the presence of an extra-Scriptural source of
authority. Hutten aptly calls this trait "a Bible in the left hand." Recalling
the ordination of a Swedenborgian minister, who held a Bible in his right
hand and one of Swedenborg's books in his left, Hutten observes that every
cult has such a "Bible in the left hand," which actually supersedes the Bible
in the right hand." (Hoekema A.A., "The Four Major Cults", 1969, p378),
CSM>Miller's scientific arguments are compelling, presented in terms that any
>layman could understand. He's never condescending or dull. Particularly
>entertaining is his response to the creationists' view that the earth is no
>more than 10,000 years old.
*Some* "creationists'" have the "view that the earth is no more than 10,000
years old" but not *all* "creationists" do. If Miller ignores old-Earth creationists
then he is perpetuating what Phil Johnson calls "the `official caricature' of the
creation-evolution debate":
"The Weiner article and book review illustrate what I would call the
"official caricature" of the creation-evolution debate, a distortion that is
either explicit or implicit in nearly all media and textbook treatments of the
subject. According to the caricature, "evolution" is a simple, unitary
process that one can see in operation today and that is also supported
unequivocally by all the fossil evidence. Everyone accepts the truth of
evolution except a disturbingly large group of biblical fundamentalists, who
insist that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old and the fossil
beds were laid down in Noah's flood." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", 1995, p73)
CSM>One reason these early chapters are so convincing is that Miller actually
>has a certain amount of sympathy for his opponents. In a wonderful anecdote,
>he relates how several years ago he debated Henry Morris, the founder of
>the Institute for Creation Research, in Tampa, Fla. The following morning,
>he ran into Mr. Morris in the hotel's coffee shop and, in a moment of
>confidence, asked him if he really believed all that nonsense he'd spouted
>the night before. Morris responded: "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."
Assuming that this verbal exchange is correctly recounted by Miller, what
Morris was probably trying to get across is that one's metaphysical
framework was at least as (if not more) important as the facts one is trying
to account for:
"New facts, collected in old ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely
lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not "speak for
themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in
science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is
a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robotlike accumulation
of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable
interpretation...Many readers may be disturbed by my argument for the
primacy of theory. Does it not lead to dogmatism and disrespect for fact? It
can, of course, but it need not. The lesson of history holds that theories are
overthrown by rival theories, not that orthodoxies are unshakable." (Gould
S.J., "Continental Drift", in "Ever Since Darwin", 1991, pp161-162,167).
CSM>As Miller came to realize, the opponents of evolution aren't necessarily
>misinformed about scientific facts, but often have simply chosen to reject
>those facts because they don't like their implications.
This is naive. One could equally argue that the *proponents* of evolution
have chosen to accept those scientific facts which support evolution, and
reject those which don't, because they *do* like their implications!
Miller is a professor of biology in a major secular university. He has a very
strong vested interest in accepting those facts which support evolution, and
rejecting those which don't, because one of the "implications" would be
that if the didn't he would be out of a job!
CSM>And to his mind, the
>scientific community is in large part to blame for this backlash.
>
>He castigates scientists like Edward O. Wilson and Stephen J. Gould for
>their thinly veiled condescension toward those with religious beliefs, and
>for using evolution to support their own atheistic world views.
Miller is in need of a reality check. The sort of fully naturalistic,
Darwinian, `blind watchmaker' evolution which is compulsory in schools and
universities today, *does* "support their own atheistic world view".
CSM>Ironically, both sides of the evolution debate tend to hold a common
>assumption: that "if the origins of living organisms can be explained in
>purely material terms, then the existence of God - at least any God worthy
>of the name - is disproved."
Miller misstates (or simply cannot see) the *real* issue. Of course if the
scientific evidence proved unequivocally that "the origins of living
organisms can be explained in purely material terms" then those who
believe in "the existence of God" could accept that God chose to work
solely through materials He had created.
But this has the problem backwards. If "the existence of God" is granted,
why assume that "the origins of living organisms can be explained in purely
material terms"? After all, it isn't as though the scientific evidence *has*
proved unequivocally that "the origins of living organisms can be explained
in purely material terms". This is one of Phil Johnson's major points:
"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs,
or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently
recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted
as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian
scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to
assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can
do all the work of biological creation because, according to their
philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as
finding the most plausible-or least implausible-description of how biological
creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they
derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of
thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true
is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers.."
(Johnson P.E., "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity
Today, Vol. 38, No. 12, October 24, 1994, p26).
CSM>For Miller, this assumption is blatantly wrong. He writes, "If the Creator
>uses physics and chemistry to run the universe of life, why wouldn't He
>have used physics and chemistry to produce it, too?"
There are several faulty assumptions behind Miller's question. First, if
Miller assumes that *ultimately* "physics and chemistry" are running "the
universe of life" and not *ultimately* the "Creator" directly, then this is
*Deism*, not Christian Theism.
Second, the issue is not how God *runs* the universe of life, but how God
*created* it. It does not follow that the same means which were used to
create something are also used to maintain it. For example, a work of art is
created by an artist, but thereafter it can be maintained by an art gallery
whose staff need not contain any artists.
Third, Miller's question seems to assume that "life" is ultimately reducible
to "physics and chemistry". But this is false, because life, unlike non-living
matter, contains *information*:
"Once this essential point is grasped, the real problem of biogenesis is clear.
Since the heady successes of molecular biology, most investigators have
sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they
will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for
that is a classic case of confusing the medium with the message. The secret
of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical and informational
rules it exploits. Life succeeds precisely because it *evades* chemical
imperatives." (Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle", 1998, p212. Emphasis
in original).
CSM>Moreover, the aspect of evolution that seems to disturb its opponents
>most - its indeterminacy, or the role played by chance - is also, he believes,
>consistent with a view of God as having given man the ability to make
>moral choices. The opposite of unpredictability, Miller argues, is
>determinism, which would eliminate man's free will.
Miller seems to assume that "chance" actually is something with causal
power. But as Sproul points out, "Chance...is not a thing that has power to
affect other things":
"How much influence or effect does chance have on the coin's turning up
heads? My answer is categorically, "None whatsoever." I say that
emphatically because there is no possibility, real or imagined, that chance
can have any influence on the outcome of the coin-toss. Why not? Because
chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately
impotent. Again, I must justify my dogmatism on this point. I say that
chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It
has no power because it has no being. I've just ventured into the realm of
ontology, into metaphysics, if you please. Chance is not an entity. It is not
a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more
precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has
no "isness." Chance has no isness. I was technically incorrect even to say
that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the
chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance
to do something than nothing has to do something." (Sproul R.C., "Not a
Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology", 1994,
p6)
CSM>God can play no active
>role whatsoever in this latter scenario, whereas in a world governed by
>chance, at least, He reserves the right to interfere at any time
If Miller really said, and meant, that the "world" was "governed by
chance" then he would be espousing (whether he realised it or not) pre-
Christian paganism!
As Sproul points out, the mere *existence* of true chance (as opposed to a
word we use to denote our ignorance of causal factors), would mean that
the sovereign God of the Bible did not even *exist*:
"As long as chance rules," Arthur Koestler has written, "God is an
anachronism." Koestler's dictum is a sound conclusion...to a point. It is true
that if chance rules, God cannot. We can go further than Koestler. It is not
necessary for chance to rule in order to supplant God. Indeed chance
requires little authority at all if it is to depose God; all it needs to do the job
is to exist. The mere existence of chance is enough to rip God from his
cosmic throne. Chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it leaves God not
only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists in its frailest possible
form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished because that would
assume he once was. To finish something implies that it at best was once
active or existing. If chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot
exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy
God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God,
he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. The two
cannot coexist by reason of the impossibility of the contrary." (Sproul R.C.,
"Not a Chance", 1994, p3)
CSM>Of course, these arguments are still based on a material view of the
>universe, which Miller largely adheres to. And his God may strike some
>readers as unappealingly distant - since for the most part, it's evolution,
>not Deity, shaping our lives.
Even the reviewer realises that Miller's God is an "unappealingly distant",
deistic deity, who has delegated the role of "shaping our lives" to a
demiurge-like `inferior deity' called "evolution".
CSM>But he does establish that science and religion can
>be compatible, because they ultimately address different questions.
Note the vague naturalistic terminology Miller uses for Christianity, namely
"religion"!. It is a meaningless statement to say that "science and religion
can be compatible" without defining what one means by "science" and
"religion". If "science" is defined as applied materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy (ie. matter and nature is all there is), then science is not
compatible with the *Christian* religion" with its ontologically real
Creator-Sustainer-Redeemer God.
CSM>Absolute materialism, as Miller puts it, "does not triumph because it cannot
>fully explain the nature of reality."
An absolute materialist would probably say "who cares?" Miller has
surrendered to absolute materialism everything about God in this world,
which is all that the absolute materialist believes exists.
Miller has paid a high price for placing his "Darwin's God" beyond the
absolute materialist's reach. His God is frankly not *worth* believing in. If
Miller's God really is "Darwin's God", then it would in fact be Evolution:
"All he could believe in was 'my deity, "Natural Selection" " (Moore J.R.,
"The Post-Darwinian Controversies" 1979, p344, in Bird W.R., "The
Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. II, 1991, p210)
CSM>Liz Marlantes is on the Monitor's staff.
>
>[...]
>
>(c) Copyright 1999 The Christian Science Publishing Society.
>All rights reserved.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------