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 | Thar's Quotes in Them Thar Hills!! (Let the Quote Mining Begin)

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

Memoirs, a fair hand, and respect? In a book on this topic? also, my pepsi challenge

I was not planning on reviewing this book as, quite frankly, it speaks very clearly for itself and does not require an abundance of time or scientific training to comprehend. To disclose a few things first that, some may consider to contribute to an inherent bias, I am a biologist and have been thoroughly interested in the Dover case for quite some time now. Also, I am not religious whatsoever.

That said, this book deserves a great deal of praise. From the lay-out of the book, Dr. Miller's infectious prose, to his ability to express rather in depth and advanced scientific methods, experiments, conclusions, theories, and his personal beliefs in a manner that should be completely accessible to all readers, Dr. Miller has succeeded in writing a book with the ability to reconcile even the hardest of religious hard liners with the staunchest and most stubborn atheists. The point is made EXTREMELY clearly in the book: the debate between ID and evolution, is NOT a debate between atheism and christianity. The debate in question revolves around the definition of science itself, what should be taught in science classrooms and why, and what ramifications does a repression or censure of science present for the future of America. Dr. Miller accomplishes all of this with an even and kind hand. There is no brow beating or rude "gotcha" points, no disrespectful or accusatory content, and he never reaches beyond any point that is not well founded and throughly referenced (a thorough bibliography is included). He accomplishes this completely with a fair discussion, a kind wit, and an inviting teaching style.

So, why have I felt compelled to write this review? When I read a book, I often like to read the negative reviews to see what I may have glossed over or forgiven as a result of being a little too pleased with the sections I liked. In this instance it is abundantly and disturbingly clear that the negative and neutral "reviewers" have not read this book. That's a shame, you'd probably like it. So, I am here to offer to loan you a copy of my book, all I ask for is to have it returned. I'll even pay for postage. So, if you have not read this and have reviewed it anyway, please comment to this review and we can figure out a way to exchange information so I can send you my copy. If you read it with an open mind, I promise you'll at least learn something (and probably owe Dr. Miller an apology), you may not change your personal beliefs, but we will have an enjoyable and quick read.

Cheers,
John

for more information click here

Thar's Quotes in Them Thar Hills!! (Let the Quote Mining Begin)

Professor Miller's "Embrace Design" approach to debunking ID is absolutely brilliant and he thoroughly hands ID proponents their pigus in this excellent book. Unfortunately, he sounds a little too convincing when he "role plays" the Pro-ID position, which exposes a huge vein of out-of-context quotes to be mined by the IDiot crowd. Of course, they would quote mine him anyway, so it doesn't really matter. :^)

Also nice is the fact that Prof. Miller is a theist (of the Catholic persuasion, I believe). Having a believer demolish ID makes the book that much sweeter. But again, in their ever persistent state of denial, IDiots will claim Prof. Miller is not a "True Christian" because he supports "Evilution".

Anyway, I really enjoyed the book, especially the debunking of the "irreducibly complex" mousetrap and the study hall antics (the spitball catapult was genius).

Highly recommended!

for more information click here

Bashes ID, but believes in design

Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, argues that ID (Intelligent Design) proponents seek the undoing of not only Darwinism, but more diabolically, four centuries of Western Science. Although I find Miller's apprehensions and warnings regarding ID less than compelling, he's still a good writer, a good teacher, and his book is worth reading.

Miller discusses and critiques ID proponent Mike Behe's arguments. Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, wrote Edge of Evolution (EOE) in 2007, where he argues that although RM+NS (random mutation and natural selection) accounts for much (micro) evolution, that nevertheless evolution via RM+NS has limits, an edge. (I found Behe's book even better and more informative than Miller's.)

Miller, unlike most neo-Darwinians, is not an atheist. Miller, like Behe, is a Catholic; both accept common descent, that life evolves, and that the earth is 4 billion plus years old. Interestingly, although Miller maintains that ID and its proponents, like Behe, are bad for America's scientific soul, Miller himself nevertheless believes in design----he writes in his chapter entitled "Life's Grand Design": "There is indeed a design to life. And that design arises out of the very fabric of the universe itself."

So Miller, like Behe, believes in design, except that Miller doesn't think the Creator's design extends as far down as does Behe. Miller apparently sees design only as far as cosmology and the laws of nature and physics; a fine-tuned universe that "knew we were coming," that was primed for life; whereas Behe sees design extending further down into the forces of biology and evolution.

The primary difference between them is that while Behe is convinced that evolution via RM+NS has limitations or an edge, beyond various contemporaneous and other obvious examples of microevolution----for which both Behe and Miller provide similar examples in their respective books----Miller apparently doesn't think there's an edge; although one does get the feeling that Miller is at times hedging his bets b/c much of what he actually discusses in his book is the evidence for common descent (which Behe accepts, as do most rational ID proponents).

Miller discusses many of the same things Behe discusses in his book, such as "facilitated design" (from Kirschner's and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life, Resolving Darwin's Dilemma) and how it and the discoveries of Evo-Devo (i.e. hox genes, regulatory "tool kits," etc.) have begun to revolutionize our understanding of evolution; although Miller and Behe often have somewhat different takes regarding the meanings and implications of such discoveries.

Miller alleges that ID is "built upon a stunning lack of curiosity and a lack of remarkable unwillingness to embrace scientific discovery." Having read Behe's EOE, I'd disagree. If anything, I'd say that the Darwinian conviction that a directionless RM+NS (and various other mechanisms often mentioned like drift) is a complete explanation for the evolution of the complexity that we see today reveals a remarkably imprudent lack of skepticism by the Darwinians.

Miller discusses one of the ("most dramatic") examples of evolution by RM+NS, using old genes for new purposes, that was also discussed by Behe in his EOE: "biological antifreeze" in Antarctic fish. As Miller explains it, the process started with an extra copy of a gene for a digestive enzyme, mutations then deleted most of the original gene, and then duplicated over and over again a small portion of the beginning of the gene; the result being a new gene that codes for a protein that acts as an antifreeze agent. But as Behe notes in his EOE, this antifreeze protein, the result of step-by-step mutations, each step providing better antifreeze protection, resulted in merely a blood additive, not a molecular machine with say the sophistication and complexity of even a rather simple protein like hemoglobin.

Miller also discusses the bacterial flagellum and Behe's claim that it is irreducibly complex (IC), and argues that since about 1/3 of the proteins of the flagellum are "remarkably similar" to all the proteins found in another molecular machine called a type III secretory system (TTSS), that the flagellum itself can therefore be regarded as a TTSS (although the TTSS and the flagellum are different machines having different functions), and that the flagellum is therefore not IC. (Behe disagrees that the TTSS disqualifies the flagellum as being IC.) Nevertheless, Miller does acknowledge that the existence of the TTSS still doesn't answer how the flagellum, or the TTSS, evolved, or which one evolved first. And Behe would say that's the point of IC, that something as complex as flagellum can't evolve in a gradual step-by-step process by RM+NS.

Although neo-Darwinian atheists (i.e. most neo-Darwinians) may enjoy Miller's ID bashing, they'll almost certainly, assuming they're somewhat discerning, find Miller's overall theistic view of the universe and life disconcerting, delusional, perhaps even dangerous, and contrary to the true spirit of neo-Darwinism and their belief in the power of a directionless, purposeless RM+NS to evolve all the complexity that we see today.

ID proponents, while perhaps taking offense to Miller's ID bashing, and those that doubt that RM+NS can truly explain all of the evolved complexity that we see today, can assess and learn from Miller's (and Behe's) arguments (in their respective books) and determine for themselves how much evolution can honestly and rigorously be attributed to random mutations and selection pressures; and the likelihood that evolution by RM+NS is an incomplete theory.

for more information click here

Yikes!

The first three pro-reviews leave one without any doubt we are witnessing cheerleading with a noticeable whiff of flailing. Each review has this in common: "oh my God" (wait there is no god but me and science); automatically takes a dim, dimmer, and dimmest view of anyone who has a valid counterpoint. This is proved by the heat generated by ID representation. I do not see that performed science is different than it was in it's earliest stages (only becoming more refined in ability and results); hence the fear and loathing exhibited by the pro reviewers of Only a Theory is totally out of court. This being true, the cases presented as dancing on the graves of all with a different approach (a contrarian approach, a dis-respecting current authority approach, or even an honest approach?) leave one to believe these individuals are in fear of something that is not related to science (a research method only). If indeed faulty conclusions are drawn from (presumed) scientific inquiry it appears, from reading the pro reviewers script, that false conclusions are only those that do not maintain in advance a purely materialistic view of life - any and all life. Pure materialism is self-refuting; a mixture of anything else and still call it materialism is a fuddle! This leaves Man as god with so-called science as his crown. (I wonder if Miller's comments on imperfections include all human beings?). I can slip through a possible hole if I put enough grease on my body. But, of course, I wrote these comments using intelligent design. Are you to be so imperious that your reaction to my comments only require bludgeoning the dolt? Should I find now an asbestos suit to don? The axes that may grind my way for above comments could produce a fiery experience. And that would be telling also. Pro reviewers me thinks you doth protest too much! Keith Trimble

for more information click here