Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul | Kenneth R. Miller

Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul | Kenneth R. Miller | Just another temporary setback for ID/creationist

books:

Only a Theory: Evo...

	Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller Viking Adult, 2008 - 256 pages average customer review:based on 42 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Like A 300 Pound Man in Tights (and an ideal jumping off point for non-scientists to critically examine ID)

I read Dr. Miller's book as part of a college biology course "is intelligent design science?" This review is part of my final exam.

In Only a Theory, biology professor Dr. Kenneth Miller examines intelligent design (ID) as a bona-fida scientific theory. What emerges is a well reasoned and very readable critique of the arguments of ID, and a timely warning about the methods of the intelligent design movement and its implications for the future of science and faith in America.

Only a Theory begins with a synopsis of the intelligent design movement, its arguments, and the cultural winds that are favoring its ascendancy in the minds of the American public. First Miller asks us to take the view of ID proponents: that intelligent design is cutting-edge science being pursued by a group of scientific visionaries. These noble scientists are striving valiantly against a Darwinist establishment hellbent on maintaining the crumbling facade of evolutionary theory. Meanwhile a shadowy cultural battle between Darwin-enabled materialism and theistic values hangs in the balance. Americans, by their very nature, are rightly choosing to side with the virtuous rebels over the sinister republic firing death rays from the university. After all, ID proponents aren't asking for much- just a fair hearing in the classroom so that students can decide the truth for themselves. That's more than reasonable given the insurmountable challenges to evolution posed by intelligent design theory... Isn't it?

Well not exactly, Miller says, because as compelling as they are made to seem, ID's arguments against evolution just don't square with reality. Miller presents the evidence, and it challenges the central scientific claims of intelligent design in the way a 300 pound man in tights who goes only by "Destroyer" can challenge one's aspirations for a career in professional wrestling.

For example, Miller explains, ID proponents tell us that the bacterial flagellum (a bacterial propulsion system) and the blood clotting system are examples of systems that are unevolvable because they are "irreducibly complex." If you take away one of the flagellum's many intricate parts you aren't left with a less good flagellum, just a broken one. That means there's no way that natural selection could have acted on a primitive flagellum, slowly adding parts to produce a series of better and better flagellums, right on up to the kind we know and love today because any flagellum with fewer pieces just wouldn't work at all. Does that mean the flagellum is unevolvable, as ID proponents claim? Not at all. As it turns out, Miller says, evolution has another trick up its sleeve: it doesn't have to work all the way up through a series of flagellums because it can simply copy existing machines, modify them slightly, and use them for completely different purposes. What good is half a flagellum? It works as a poison syringe. Miller then takes on two other favorite paragons of irreducible complexity: the blood clotting cascade and the immune system, whose irreducible complexity status rests on similar types of arguments

After addressing irreducible complexity, Miller turns to statistical arguments against evolution such as those put forth by ID theorist Michael Behe in his new book, The Edge of Evolution. Behe's conclusion that evolution is not sufficiently up to the task of generating new information in the cell is the result of egregious mathematical slight of hand, Miller says.

Miller explains that Behe bases his conclusion on estimates of the probability of populations of Plasmodium, the protozoan responsible for malaria, evolving specific (best) binding sites for interactions between two proteins.* A very particular sequence of amino acids, the chemical subunits of which proteins are made, in each of the proteins is necessary to provide optimal binding efficiency, and the probability of such a perfect site appearing "out of the blue" in its specific state as a result of simultaneous random mutations is absurdly small. That probability can be estimated just like you can estimate the chance of guessing the correct combination of a padlock. However, while a padlock won't open with a combination that is "close enough," proteins can and do bind to each other through imperfect binding sites. This well known fact is ignored by Behe, Miller points out. Behe's claim sinks because the odds of generating an imperfect but functional binding site (many different combinations of amino acids will do) are astronomically greater than the probability of generating a specific one; and once an imperfect binding site is established it can be maintained and improved by natural selection until it reaches the specific state.

*interactions between proteins are essential to just about everything that happens in the cell so, according to Behe, they make a good model of the type of complex information evolution would have to be capable of generating to account for the machinery of the cell.

Miller also explores the ideas of ID theorist William Dembski, who argues, in short, that natural processes such as natural selection cannot lead to an increase in the type of information present in DNA. Dembski calls this "The Law of Conservation of Information." Again, Miller finds that while it sounds impressively technical when dressed in the language of information theory, this claim simply defies the evidence.

Miller points to computer simulations of the evolution of protein binding sites on DNA and backs that up with the real world example of a population of bacteria that developed an enzyme to digest nylon, both of which indicate an increase in information content due to natural selection in contradiction to Dembski's Law.

What about the fossil record? Miller leaves us to ponder whether it makes more sense to view the recurring pattern of speciation and extinction as the work of evolution or to attribute it to the direct action of a designer who has interfered more than thirty times in the recent history of the horse family alone, creating hundreds of horse species then allowing those creations to repeatedly go extinct, only to copy the features of previous species into the next version over and over again.

After Miller so effectively refutes the arguments of ID, he moves to the main thrust of the book. If ID is so obviously flawed, how has it gotten this far, and what does it mean for the future of science in America? The answer, Miller says, is that the intelligent design movement is less a scientific enterprise than a slick PR firm that has been trying to save a place for God in the biology textbooks since the downfall of creation science in the 1980's. Trouble is, in order to accomplish this goal they have had to subvert the scientific method itself. Instead of writing papers for critical review by their scientific peers and running extensive, replicable tests to support their claims, the intelligent design movement has simply proclaimed that their arguments against evolution are valid and proceeded to demand a place in the biology classroom. Worse, their desire to invoke supernatural causation (or the unverifiable possibility of supernatural causation) as a scientific explanation threatens to stop scientific research in its tracks. In fact, says Miller, intelligent design proponents explicitly seek to undo the four centuries old convention that science will only pose as explanations what it can test- natural causes. ID proponents openly seek to change the very definition of the practice of science to suit their needs, Miller says, and if they are allowed to do so they will open the door to a paralyzing relativistic perversion of science where "openness" to different ideas supplants the search for objective truth about the natural world through testing and verification. America, Miller fears, is in very real danger of losing its scientific soul.

And speaking of souls... A portion of Miller's book is dedicated to a question that is imminently important to him as a practicing Catholic. Does accepting evolution mean rejecting Genesis? Does it mean accepting that our lives are without purpose, that we are mere beasts, that we are not special, but merely the forlorn progeny of godless cosmic circumstance?

"In a very direct and personal way," Miller writes, "I have written this book to confront some of the troubling questions that surround our understandings of human origins...What we all must ask, ultimately, is whether the true story of human origins is to be feared and hidden, or embraced and celebrated."

While it is not possible to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with modern science, Miller says, Genesis is not meant to be read as a science text. Rather, it should be understood in the context of an attempt to communicate the grand truth that "We are here along with all other existence as the result of the creative power of God" to a prescientific audience. Miller explains his own theological view that the universe was "primed for human life" by God, and that the eventual evolution of humans, or something like us- creatures that could know and love God- was assured by the very structure of the cosmos.

"The evolutionary cosmology that emerges from physics and biology tells us that we are indeed made, just as Scripture claimed, from the dust of the earth itself. But the details of that story are grander than any of the authors of Scripture might have dreamed. For human life to have developed on our planet, we need a universe even vaster than the nighttime sky. We require a cosmos of inconceivable age, finely tuned fundamental constants to stoke the fires of trillions of suns, and a balance of light and heavy elements forged in the embers of dying stars. And we do indeed have all of them."

We are indeed special, and our existence is meaningful, Miller assures us. All the more so because we are capable of observing and understanding God's universe.

Overall, Only a Theory is a great read. It is informative yet accessible enough to be an ideal jumping off point for non-scientists who want to critically examine the arguments of ID and its claim to a place in science education. The section about "reconciling" religion and science, although brief, is a poignant reminder that the so-called divide between religion and science depends ultimately on our conclusions to a more fundamental question about the nature of faith.

for more information click here

Just another temporary setback for ID/creationist

This is a very well-written book that anyone with a few biology classes under their belt can follow very easily the whole way through. Miller lays out the claims of the ID movement and it's most highly credentialed scientism scholars, and then systematically demolishes them.

What I particularly enjoyed though was his admission to the idea of theistic evolution, though I can't remember if he specifically refers to his belief by that name. All through my science education, I've ignored the debate simply because it didn't directly affect my own research. I reconciled long ago that the overwhelming evidence for evolution via natural selection was simply another law of nature (like gravity or the duality of light) that everything on this planet obediently follows. Maybe God put all of those laws in place and then stepped aside--who really knows. This view isn't necessarily expressed by Miller, but his view seems very similar.

I do have some disagreement with the author, but these are trivial to the debate. I think that Dr. Behe is clearly well-educated in biochemistry, and I think that in some strange way he is doing "science." He may not be running experiments--I know plenty of highly-respected scientists that do not do lab work anymore--but he does examine scientifically obtained data and try to understand it from a different viewpoint. Many times he turns out to be mystified or flat wrong, but he does question the long-held assumptions of the scientific community and that is a good thing. To his credit, every time he is shown up by someone who knows more than he does about the data he questions, he always seems to come back with a new argument based on actual data from peer-reviewed research. I concur with the argument that he usually overlooks critical aspects that derail his argument, but he is incredibly persistent. Persistence can be a great quality in the realm of science. Unfortunately for the ID movement, he seems the only person educated and insightful enough to give an entertaining fact-based debate.

My second disagreement is with the main point of the book. As I said before, I conducted research for several years (okay, only 4) without ever seriously considering the implications of evolution on my experiments. This is not uncommon. I did the work the best I could, I tried to be insightful and open-minded, and in the end, I just wanted to understand in as much detail as possible how my model organism adapted to its environment. I'm no ground-breaking scientist, but I don't think we're at a crossroads where science will flop in America because our highly-trained scientists will no longer want to find real evidence to solve sophisticated problems. The explanation that "God did it that way" has been around for a very long time, yet we still have highly advanced societies full of people that just can't help but want to know EXACTLY "how things work." America is at the top of the list in that regard.

for more information click here

The Gathering Storm of another Pseudo-Religico-Science

For those wanting to know what all the fuss was about in the Dover Board of Education case. In which Kenneth Miller and Michael Behe squared-off in Court, a case, which was decided against Intelligent Design (ID), this book recounts many of those details.

Annoyingly, at times, the Brown U. Cell Biologist's counter-attack against what he sees as the gathering storm of ID's PR advocacy, seems almost too tactful and too respectful - ceding in a backhanded sort of way unnecessary ground to the pseudo-science of ID, and in the process at least giving its "optics" an undeserved "parity" with the proven theory of Evolution.

By giving ID such a wide berth, and such undeserving prominence, often arguing the details of its case better than that made by their most noted "professional advocate" Michael Behe, Miller at times seems to be offering up here a kind of "softness" that betrays not just religion sympathy, and quiet religious solidarity, but backhanded legitimacy to the ID movement itself.

Much to my discomfort, Miller, a Roman Catholic, makes his case not so much against the details of the pseudo-science of ID itself, but primarily against its "proven ability" to generate grassroots PR support that Miller (perhaps correctly) judges to be the larger gathering threat.

In Miller's view, if this movement is allowed to continue unchecked, the end result well could be an undermining of U.S. science altogether, and with it, the U.S. reputation as one of the world's leaders in science, and scientific research. It could require for instance that other non-scientific theories and practices such as Astrology, ESP, etc. be introduced into U.S. classrooms.

For me, a "non-theist," this book was disturbing on many levels: (1) it granted a kind of undeserving (but backhanded) legitimacy to some of ID's basic anti-scientific hypotheses; (2) it raised the very legitimately scary point that ID can (and in many way is) winning the PR war against Evolution by skillful deployment of religiously committed grassroots resources, as well as by scientific fiat; and (3) it raised the defense of Evolution from the level of basic hypotheses of science to one of comparative theories of biodiversity, in effect by default ceding a scintilla of scientific ground to the ID advocates, as well. By acknowledging that their theories may have some degree of scientific validity at the level of basic science; and insisting that they be tested at these lower levels, ID could, at least in the minds of some, be viewed as being scientifically legitimate.

While unnerving, and appearing to cede some ground (indeed ceding it is itself a kind of reverse slippery slope), Professor Miller nevertheless has made his larger points well: Intelligent Design, in all its aspects, is just another of many other, scary, unintelligent, gathering "crackpot" threats to American science and to the nation's collective cultural sanity.

Four Stars

for more information click here