Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
Best of Type, May 1 2004
By A Customer
I have been intrigued by the on-going debate regarding evolution. As a result, over the last year I have read a range of books on the issue starting with Darwin's Origin of Species, and, including works by Pennock, Dawkins, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others. Of recent works defending the theory of evolution Finding Darwin's God is the best that I have come across for a popular audience.In the early portion of the book Miller provides a good and succinct case for evolution (something I find Dawkins incapable of). The author then addresses several of the different challenges to evolution (Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Johnson and Behe). He is most successful against the YEC, but his responses to the others challengers, if not decisive, are well articulated. A point that is particularly well done is the discussion with respect to why evolution is such an emotionally charged issue. I agree with Miller that one of the causes of this is the extreme extrapolations atheists such as Dawkins, Gould et al make from what at the end of the day is a limited scientific theory (albeit an interesting one). For those unfamiliar with this aspect of the discussion, many "popularizers" of evolution attempt to use the theory to argue for materialism/determinism and eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. In the second part of the book Miller goes on to argue that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. In doing so, he touches on a range of scientific and theological issues including: deism, quantum theory, cosmology and apologetics. This part of the book was not as well done. I support Miller's general contentions but, believe that he tried to accomplish too much and got out of his intellectual depth. Although it had some good points the second half was repetitive and a bit disjointed. I will just offer a few comments on some of these latter arguments before closing. First, Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the word nor free will are contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy (an excellent collection of essays on various philosophical questions). Additionally, similar to other scientific fields much work is on-going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area could prove to be methodological. Second, Miller's handling of cosmology and its theological ramifications are weak. Readers seeking a better understanding of this issue can seek one of Bill Craig's many excellent works in this area. Third, it is not surprising that the author as a scientist approaches the issue from a classic modernist standpoint (i.e. science is the only source of truth). Much fascinating discussion has taken place around this issue and, some significant challenges have been raised by postmodern thinkers. For an introduction to postmodern philosophical work Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism is simply outstanding. Finally, the author gives to much credence to the threat evolution poses to religion. In contemporary apologetics the argument from design plays a limited role and, when used it revolves around the fundamental relationships in the universe not evolution (Miller touched on this issue). All but the most literal of Christians (YEC types) do not see evolution and a Christian worldview as incompatible. In conclusion, good book, well worth the money. For those exploring the evolution argument I recommend it along with Behe's Darwins's Black Box and a work by Philip Johnson such as The Wedge of Truth (to get a fell for both sides).
|
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
Best of Type, April 21 2004
By A Customer
I have been intrigued by the on-going debate regarding evolution. As a result, over the last year I have read a range of books on the issue starting with Darwin's Origin of Species, and, including works by Pennock, Dawkins, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others. Of recent works defending the theory of evolution Finding Darwin's God is the best that I have come across for a popular audience.In the early portion of the book Miller provides a good and succinct case for evolution (something I find Dawkins incapable of). The author then addresses several of the different challenges to evolution (Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Johnson and Behe). He is most successful against the YEC, but his responses to the others challengers, if not decisive, is well articulated. Apoint that is particularly well done is the discussion with respect to why evolution is such an emotionally charged issue. I agree with Miller that one of the causes of this is the extreme extrapolations atheists such as Dawkins, Gould et al make from what at the end of the day is a limited scientific theory (albeit an interesting one). For those unfamiliar with this aspect of the discussion, many "popularizers" of evolution attempt to use the theory to argue for materialism/determinism and eliminate the possibility of the supernatural. In the second part of the book Miller goes on to argue that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. In doing so, he touches on a range of scientific and theological issues including: deism, quantum theory, cosmology and apologetics. This part of the book was not as well done. I support Miller's general contentions but, believe that he tried to accomplish too much and got out of his intellectual depth. Although it had some good points the second half was repetitive and a bit disjointed. I will just offer a few comments on some of these latter arguments before closing. First, Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the word nor free will are contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy (an excellent collection of essays on various philosophical questions). Additionally, similar to other scientific fields much work is on-going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area could prove to be methodological. Second, Miller's handling of cosmology and its theological ramifications are weak. Readers seeking a better understanding of this issue can seek one of Bill Craig's many excellent works in this area. Third, it is not surprising that the author as a scientist approaches the issue from a classic modernist standpoint (i.e. science is the only source of truth). Much fascinating discussion has taken place around this issue and, some significant challenges have been raised by postmodern thinkers. For an introduction to postmodern philosophical work Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism is simply outstanding. Finally, the author gives to much credence to the threat evolution poses to religion. In contemporary apologetics the argument from design plays a limited role and, when used it revolves around the fundamental relationships in the universe not evolution (Miller touched on this issue). All but the most literal of Christians (YEC types) do not see evolution and a Christian worldview as incompatible. In conclusion, good book, well worth the money. For those exploring the evolution argument I recommend it along with Behe's Darwins's Black Box and a work by Philip Johnson such as The Wedge of Truth (to get a fell for both sides).
|
|
|
2.0 out of 5 stars
Contains many major mistakes, Feb 23 2004
By A Customer
Although this book has much good material, it contains many major mistakes. For example,research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must be of the "inverted" design. Miller claims that this design is suboptimal because the photoreceptors are on the inside curvature of the retina, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors The photoreceptors (rods and cones) MUST face AWAY from the front of the eye in order to be in contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supply it with blood. The verted design claimed by Miller to be best would not place the photoreceptors in contact with their source of nutrition (the choroid). This is a serious problem because rods and cones need an enormous amount of energy for repair and they completely replace themselves at a very high rate (about every 7 days or so), due to phototoxicity, and other damage. Miller's design simply would not allow the rods and cones to function because of their extremely high rate of metabolism. Furthermore, placing the neural components of the retina in front of the photoreceptors does not produce any kind of optical handicap, since the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light, so very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was near-perfect transparency.
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|