|
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul | 
 enlarge | Author: Kenneth R. Miller
Publisher: Viking Adult
Category: Book
List Price: $25.95
Buy New: $14.59
You Save: $11.36 (44%)
New (41) Used (7) from $14.59
Avg. Customer Rating:  35 reviews
Sales Rank: 9789
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.6 x 0.9
ISBN: 067001883X
Dewey Decimal Number: 576.8071073
EAN: 9780670018833
ASIN: 067001883X
Publication Date: June 12, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: SATISFACTION GUARANTEED! NEW Book! May have remainder mark. Most orders ship within 1 BUSINESS DAY with ORDER CONFIRMATION.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A leading scientist examines the battle between evolution and Intelligent Design in America
At the dawn of the twenty- first century, the debate over Darwins theory of evolution is nearly as contentious as it was in the notorious Scopes trial a century ago. Today, however, people who believe that evolution is only a theory have put their hopes in a concept known as Intelligent Design.
In Only a Theory, Kenneth Miller dissects the claims of the ID movement in the same incisive style that marked his testimony as an expert witness in Pennsylvanias landmark 2005 Dover evolution trial.
Unlike other books on the subject, Only a Theorys critique of ID goes far beyond the scientific claims of the movement. To Miller, Americas soulits place as the worlds leading scientific nationis at risk because of this struggle. As he explains, the tactics of this new assault on science mimic earlier efforts of the academic left to remake science as a relativistic, culturally determined enterprise, rather than a rational search for truth about the natural world. Such marginalization, he argues, would effectively destroy American science.
Despite this analysis, Miller refuses to play the role of pessimist. He sees this as a teachable opportunity, a moment at which public understanding and support for science can be redeemed, and offers nothing less than a prescription for how America can save its scientific soul.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 30 more reviews...
 Belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive September 28, 2008
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
Intelligent Design's Michael Behe has written books, such as "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", advocates ID-centric ideas like "irreducible complexity" to show that gradual evolution could not have produced complex biological organs or processes. What he's really saying is that the world is too much for us humans to understand, and that we should instead stop our inquiries and have faith that God knows best... If we really decided to do this and leave aside science's method of inquiry, we would be following what another culture did which once had a flourishing scientific tradition - Islam - to which the beginnings of European science owes much. In Islamic culture today, science can only be science if it is infused with Islamic belief. Unwittingly, the proponents of ID are intent that we follow in Islam's footsteps with the undoubted result of being led into an age of superstition and dogmatism.
The title of Kenneth R. Miller's book is based on one of ID's biggest catchphrases, that evolution is "only a theory" and that other competing "theories", like ID, deserve equal hearing. This book is Miller's counter to such a contention and that those who do espouse ID are simply wrong and are in over their heads. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, believes firmly in evolution as a validated scientific fact and as an evolving theory. You may be surprised to learn that he also believes in God. His main thesis is that belief in God and belief in evolution are not at all in conflict. Miller's resolution is that "the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve."
I recommend this book whole-heartedly.
 Miller has a huge problem; Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and NOT based on religion September 11, 2008
5 out of 25 found this review helpful
"To be effective in science a young investigator has to feel free to contradict and even to disrespect scientific authority." If you had attributed that quote to William Dembski, you would be wrong. In actuality, Kenneth Miller stated that on page 10 of his new book.
One would get the impression that Miller is sympathetic to intelligent design. However, Miller justifies the preceding quote to his acolytes by painting intelligent design as unscientific because it is based on religious belief. So the big question is this: is Intelligent Design based on theistic beliefs or not? Miller has come to the realization that a judge's decision in answering that question wasn't enough to sway the masses. That's why I believe this book came about.
Now I always thought that scientists should be free to follow evidence wherever they think it leads. Therefore, let's start by looking at the scientific evidence. Because of the great advances in molecular biology, miniature motors and circuits have been found in cells, which strongly suggest the presence of irreducible complexity. Even Miller admits that there is irreducible complexity. He states, "The question becomes whether we can find irreducible complex machines inside the cell. And the great news from the point of intelligent design, is that we can. In fact they are everywhere."
Irreducible complexity acts as an empirical marker of design because it rules out step-by-step evolution through selection. This is devastating to Neo Darwinian Evolution. The only way Miller can downplay it is by stating he is confident that one day materialistic science can account for it. Aside from speculation, right now, that's not happening and there's a good chance it may never happen.
Another case for Intelligent Design is based upon the presence of encoded information in DNA. The cell does actually encode and translate things. For instance, the only way a cell knows how to make protein, a specified sequence of amino acids, is from information that comes from the DNA molecule. The fact that DNA contains encoded information in the form of a one-dimensional linear string of symbols is very suggestive positive evidence for Intelligent Design behind the fabric of life.
Thirdly, many scientists, and I believe Miller is among them, have been making arguments for Intelligent Design based on evidence of the "fine tuning" of the laws of physics and/or parameters that make Earth friendly to life and scientific discovery. Miller alludes to this by citing a book called Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees. Miller states, "Physical scientists, in particular have marveled at the remarkable precision with which the fundamental constants of nature must be honored in order to make our universe, and our lives possible." Then there is the late astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who I might add was an atheist, stated, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
Anyone can see that these arguments have evidential not theological premises. As geneticist Michael Denton once observed the contemporary argument for design "may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions." And that is precisely the distinction that Miller fails to grasp when he continues to make the link between Intelligent Design and religion.
Miller and his devotees will kick and scream, and you will hear all kinds of specious arguments, however, nothing will change the fact that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and should be taught as such in classrooms.
The purported War on Science propagated by Miller is a sham September 9, 2008
8 out of 20 found this review helpful
Professor Miller is a firm believer of an Intelligent Designer. There is only one hitch; it pertains only to the structure of the Universe. However there is a problem with the Professor's exclusivity. How can someone believe a designer had the astonishing power to create this vast universe, yet finds it impossible to believe that the designer could not have created the first living cell?
A cell by all accounts, even among the most ardent opponents of ID, gives the impression of being designed. Indeed Richard Dawkins stated the following in his book called the Blind Watchmaker: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Well, is there an Intelligent Designer or not? The appearance of design is evident; the designer is evident; all Professor Miller has to do is connect the dots.
Instead Professor Miller is of the belief that the designer who created the universe had had enough, went into oblivion, and is never to be heard of again. The disconnect that Professor Miller adheres to in this scenario is severely lacking.
It seems that the more people exposed to what the Intelligent Design Movement has to say as an alternative to specifically macroevolution, the more they have embraced it. Why is that? Professor Miller answers that question rather laconically at the end of chapter two in his book by saying, the American people simply do not trust the Neo Darwinian explanation of macroevolution.
Professor Miller tries valiantly to sugar coat that explanation with a lot of scientific jargon and clever illustrations, which supposedly augments his contention. However, in the final analysis, an unguided and undirected extrapolation of microevolution falls flat.
Everyone knows that natural selection can produce small-scale changes; however, the power to change over an indefinite period is limited. For instance, after one year a pine seedling may grow one foot in height. After five years, the tree will be about five feet tall. Extrapolate that growth rate over one thousand years, now you could understand why there are real limits on the process.
The late Harvard Professor and evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould also expressed his doubts and suggested that a more complicated theory with new mechanisms may very well lead to the abandonment of the Neo Darwinian paradigm. Even with the tide going against him, Professor Miller still insists on shoving this flawed theory down our throats; this time by injecting the element of fear mongering.
We are supposed to believe that not only any rejection of NDE but also even any criticism of it will cause America to lose its standing as the most scientifically dominant country in the world. On top of that, according to Professor Miller, teaching the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to macroevolution, will hurtle America into becoming a theocracy. All of that is pure unadulterated hogwash.
Professor Miller makes his case by mischaracterizing Intelligent Design theory as a pseudoscience as if it was on par with astrology or numerology. The Big Bang theory is based on physical data and logical inferences yet the scientific community has accepted it. The same can be said of Intelligent Design. It is merely an inference based on observations of patterns of events that occur in nature. Anyone who calls this a religion based on Biblical scriptures just doesn't get it. By the way, design detection is not a new science. It has been used in a number of other disciplines such as SETI, forensics, and archaeology.
Professor Miller likes to remind us that in terms of NDE, unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. Yet it is unacceptable to apply that same aphorism to Intelligent Design.
Professor Miller's fear mongering becomes acutely manifested when he discusses The Wedge Strategy in which he took what Professor Barbara Forest had to say lock, stock and barrel.
In citing the introductory paragraph of the Wedge document Professor Miller goes on to assert that those responsible want to impose a theocracy. I could never understand how a person of Professor Miller intellect makes such a foolish assumption. Here is the opening paragraph of the Wedge document:
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."
It appears that Professor Miller is guilty of the same reading blunder that his protege John Kwok committed. That is they don't fully read passages in their entirety.
If the Wedge document were supposedly promoting theocracy, then why would it be praising representative democracy and human rights. It appears likely that all Professor Miller needed to read was that humans are created in the image of God and he drew his conclusion forthwith.
Professor Miller is naive to think that a scientist cannot do excellent scientific research if he believes in Intelligent Design. What Professor Miller seems not to understand is that challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism is not the same as challenging science itself.
Overall Professor Miller, with the use of his fecund imagination wrote a book based on pretentious and pointless fears. The war on science is completely unfounded and extremely misleading. In a word, it's a sham.
It Must Be Getting Scary Now August 31, 2008
1 out of 27 found this review helpful
You Darwinists must feel kind of scary with are new candidate for Vice President being a "Creationist!!!!! Yes the Governor of Alaska is a pro-Life, Creationist. Could this be an "ID"!!!! plot to take over the White House. Heaven forbid, whoops wrong word, Darwin forbid. No that doesn't make sense. I got it. The God DelusionDawkins forbid. No, he's just a delusion, not even an American. I really got it this time. Why don't you guys write her a letter of enlightenment. Before you know it, it's going to get worse. Where do all these people come from that dare have the "audacity" to think for themselves
" Comments by a Guilty Bystander"
 Which is "the Battle for America's Soul"? August 20, 2008
4 out of 11 found this review helpful
The title's "Battle for America's Soul", and the concluding (p.221) "in finding the strength to embrace what evolution tells us about the nature of reality, we will find reward beyond measure. For it is such faith that will ultimately redeem our scientific souls", is very peculiar. The author obviously borrows the concepts of faith, redemption, and soul from religion, although alleged religious claims are the target of "the Battle".
Religious claims encompass the soul, and he strangely appropriates it in his title and conclusion for the object of salvation by evolution, the very theory that proclaims organisms, including humans, as products of physical forces alone and void of any immaterial substance like soul. Likewise, asking for "faith" in evolution is inconsistent with evolution's "actually being true" (same p.221) which controverts the title's "ONLY A THEORY".
The author of course uses religious expressions figuratively, not as commonly understood, attempting to persuade the reader that "The story evolutionary science can tell is grander and more sweeping than any just-so narrative concocted by the pretenders of intelligent design" (p.220). Notice the denigrating language for opponents, and the author indeed casts them in as degrading a light as anyone I know of. He offers various analogies, in one case (p.4) between actions by the Kansas Board of Education in 2000 and fights in Kansas in the 1850s among proslavery and antislavery forces, suggesting that "antievolutionists" (a term he uses persistently for the more accurate "anti-Darwinists") are somehow comparable to slaveholders. Much more; he says (p.168), "proponents of ID ["intelligent design", defending design in organisms, contrasted with Darwinian purposelessness]...seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science". To my knowledge, the opposition is specifically to Darwin's claim of undirected rather than directed forming of organisms, "intelligent design" mostly comprising scientists, who don't want to destroy science but to improve it. Which story is then "concocted" by its "pretenders", as quoted at the top of this paragraph?
Darwin himself, quoted in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, p.31, cites "The old argument of design" and contends: "We can no longer argue that [organisms] must have been made by an intelligent being". The thought that organisms are formed with purpose seems indeed matter of course, and it is natural selection, simulating artificial selection by its "pretenders", that appears "concocted". I tried in these reviews, as well as in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries, to point out that organisms in fact are universally known to act purposely, toward survival, which actual purpose is forgotten in debating the possibility of purpose in organisms' structure. How Darwinians can confuse this evidence with the mechanistic contrivance of natural selection is illustrated by a passage in the book reviewed.
In discussing a parasite causing malaria, the author states: "Evolution has also produced new forms of resistance to [the parasite] within the human population, just as any biologist would predict" (p.66). Predict from what? Such resistance in humans is not developed through purposeless natural selection, requiring countless generations, but through the purposive immune system in individuals. This sort of flawed reasoning occurs throughout the book, not to mention Darwinism.
The author also relies on opinions hardly scientific, like those of judges and journalists, and in general tries to convince the reader and perhaps himself how ridiculous or laughable is the idea of design in organisms, he reflecting the recent barrage of opinions that the design is not quite intelligent. He mocks the designer as maybe creating a new species "in a sudden puff of smoke" and as "not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon..." (pp.50-51). How an all-powerful designer creates a species seems up to him, however. Maybe he does so at the organism's germinal stage, to better suit the inquirer's demands. We still don't know if the egg or the chicken came first. And that every species goes extinct is not so shocking in view of the inevitable death of every individual, which is of more concern to the individual than the eventual extinction of its species. But this too, or any perceived imperfection, is up to the designer, not to the no less imperfect human observer.
Whether the book's author, alongside others, likes it or not, the purpose of preservation is a principal attribute of all living things, whatever the power behind it is wished to be called, and it seems the schemes of this power, incorporating all of nature, are "grander and more sweeping"--to repeat the book's above phrase--than Darwinism's piecemeal accumulation of accidents.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
