I suggested that Miller's God can tweak evolution and John Rosenhouse replies,
I am not aware of any instance where Miller argued that God tweaks mutations to get what He wants. In fact, it seems to me that Miller's view of evolution is almost indistinguishable from that of Richard Dawkins. For example, in Finding Darwin's God Miller has nothing but praise for Dawkins' description of evolution in The Blind Watchmaker.Miller lays out his case in Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. Chapter 7 ("Beyond Materialism") sets the tone for the last half of the book. Here, Miller stresses the importance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (p.200). This is the basis for his statement that, materialism is wrong at its core (p.203).
Miller then goes on to his main point; namely, that ...
... the fact that mutation and variation are inherently unpredictable means that the course of evolution is, too. In other words, evolutionary history can turn on a very, very small dime—the quantum state of a single subatomic particle.This is an important part of Miller's argument. Let's make sure everyone understands it. Miller is saying; (a) tiny changes can have profound effects, and (b) there is fundamentlal uncertainly at the subatomic level so we can never be sure of what caused something to happen. It's important for Miller's argument that evolution appear to be fundamentally a random process. I know from personal experience that Richard Dawkins does not agree.
The dénouement comes in Chapter 8 ("The Road Back Home"). The goal in that chapter is to find a way where God can be present and active in the world without being detectable by science. The solution is very ingenious,
Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in way that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organsisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay. Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions; and this, too could serve as an undectable amplifier of divine action. (p.241)So, God can guide evolution and perform miracles and we have no way of knowing it that he meddled. But meddle he does. That's an absolute requirement in Miller's religion.
Jason Rosenhouse continues,
It is likewise absurd to say that Miller's view of evolution is nearly indistinguishable from Behe's. Miller believes that God set up the initial conditions for making evolution possible, but then natural forces took over. He is quite clear in his book that the course of evolution was not foreordained by anything God did. This fact is crucial to Miller's view of Christian theology. He argues that a world in which God constantly intervenes, or one in which the course of evolution was foreordained by God, would also be a world that could not be viewed as truly separate from God Himself.Miller's God has to perform miracles; that's an essential part of the Roman Catholic faith. What Miller is trying to do is explain how his God can do it while not conflicting with science. The passage that I just quoted is the answer. But let's be clear about one thing. Miller's religion is not deism, in spite of what you (John) might have thought.
Yes, it's true that Miller doesn't want a God who intervenes all the time. That's why he says that "God's miracles are not routine subversions of the laws of nature" (p.239). But that doesn't mean that miracles are forbidden—not by any reading of Miller than I can see. Instead, Miller argues that "when God does act in the world, He does so with care and subtlety."
Jason, the answering of prayer is another example of a God who is active in the present-day world. This is not consistent with your claim that Miller believes in a God who set up the initial conditions then stepped aside. Miller says,
... any traditional believer must agree that God is able to influence the thoughts and actions of individual beings. We pray for strength, we pray for patience, and we pray for understanding. Prayer is an element of faith, and bound within it is the conviction that God can affect us and those for whom we pray in positive ways.That's not a deist God. That's not even the God of Michael Denton. At the risk of beating a dead horse, let's quote Miller once again to prove to you that he believes in an active God who intervenes in nature,
Remember, once again, that people of faith believe their God is active in the present world, where He works in concert with the naturalism of physics and chemistry. A God who achieves His will in the present by such means can hardly be threatened by the discovery that He might have worked the same way in the past.According to Miller, the end result of evolution is to have "given the Creator exactly what He was looking for—a creature who would know Him and love Him ..." (p.239). Miller says that "... we can certainly see God's will emerging in the grand and improbable tree of life" (p.238). It's true, as you say, that Miller never explicitly states that God guided evolution. Instead, what he does is explain that there's a purpose behind the universe and that God is active in the world today and has been in the past. Miller then describes ways in which God could have undetectably guided things if He had wanted to, by fiddling with quantum indeterminacy. You are left to draw your own conclusions.
The most important difference between Behe and Miller is that Behe thinks you can actually detect God's handiwork while Miller thinks it is so well hidden that scientists can can never detect it. Miller recognizes it only through his faith.
19 comments :
Larry, notice every thing your said that miller was pointing out aspects about room for his religion (and of course with a supernatural god that miller believes in one can always find room---that is why there fundementally is not a conflict between religion and science, just particular relgious beliefs help by many.) He was not making a scientific statement about his religion.. Now personally I think miller's theology falls into a god of the gaps arguemet, but he does not try to say his science PROVES god, just that he can still make room for god. As Michael Ruse has argued, today's science makes god unnecassary, but does not disprove god. Just as it can not disprove the tooth fairy, only particular tooth fairy stories. So it is important for you to keep the argument as straight as you are demanding the theist to. I think you fail, as do many theists. But in this case, I think you are unfair to miller. He honestly and openly states that he has a world veiw that includes science, but not a world view that only includes science. Yes that can make a lot of lazy theists say...see I can have my god and science to, in ways that aren't consistant, but then so does evolution make for lazy atheists.
"Behe thinks you can actually detect God's handiwork [within science] while Miller thinks it is so well hidden that scientists can can never detect it. Miller recognizes it only through his faith."
Now if you could only take what you wrote here and see how it makes your arguments against Miller, the theistic scientists and the 'appeasers' seem silly.
Larry,
It's Jason, not John.
Behe thinks you can actually detect God's handiwork while Miller thinks it is so well hidden that scientists can can never detect it. Miller recognizes it only through his faith.
Randy beat me to it but what you have finally discovered about Miller's theology shows that Miller's theology does not conflict with science.
Randy beat me to it but what you have finally discovered about Miller's theology shows that Miller's theology does not conflict with science.
Depends on your view of quantum mechanics. Most QM physicists would say hidden variables are extremely unlikely and that experiments do not support him at all. Miller is skating on very thin ice.
It's Jason, not John
Oops. How embarrassing. Thanks.
I knew that. :-)
Miller: "... the fact that mutation and variation are inherently unpredictable means that the course of evolution is, too."
Moran: "It's important for Miller's argument that evolution appear to be fundamentally a random process. I know from personal experience that Richard Dawkins does not agree."
Whenever I've heard of Dawkins saying that evolution isn't random, it's been as a counter to claims that evolution is like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and making a Boeing 747. Dawkins is not denying that evolution has a random element.
Moran: "Jason, the answering of prayer is another example of a God who is active in the present-day world. This is not consistent with your claim that Miller believes in a God who set up the initial conditions then stepped aside."
There is a subtle distortion here. Rosenhouse wrote: "Miller believes that God set up the initial conditions for making evolution possible, but then natural forces took over." There is a vast difference between the claim that God started evolution on its own course and left it to develop on its own, while still intervening with miracles in human history (e.g. the virgin birth, the resurrection), and the claim that God started up the whole universe and didn't interfere after that.
Depends on your view of quantum mechanics. Most QM physicists would say hidden variables are extremely unlikely and that experiments do not support him at all. Miller is skating on very thin ice.
But what Miller (and official Catholic theology) will do is, should that thin ice break (though how one decides hidden variables are unlikely, given that they are hidden, I'll leave for another day), is adjust his theology, not try to adjust the science. As the theologians would put it, "Truth cannot contadict Truth."
This is the point. Miller and other "Theistic Evolutionists" aren't in conflict with science anymore than "Theistic Heliocentrists" are in conflict with science. To them, science itself and its results are simply part of the world as it is: a base condition for any understanding. Their theology is neither scientific nor anti-scientific, it is a-scientific.
John Pieret says,
Randy beat me to it but what you have finally discovered about Miller's theology shows that Miller's theology does not conflict with science.
If that's true then why would Miller write a book with the subtitle, "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution?" It's a book about apologetics. The whole point is to address the conflict that everyone but you sees. He knows darn well that there's a conflict and that's why he takes 338 pages to try and make it go away.
Miller would like you to believe he has finally solved the age-old problem and managed to reconcile his version of religion with science.
He may have convinced you that miracles don't conflict with science but he hasn't convinced me.
is adjust his theology, not try to adjust the science
Classic god of the gaps. Adjust your definition of god when he's falsified, because you want to believe in something.
though how one decides hidden variables are unlikely, given that they are hidden
No, experments contradict them (look it up). However, you could always say that we are like computer programs running experiments, trying to figure out the nature of the underlying hardware that we run on - can't be done (i.e. the universe is a vast simulation). Interesting speculation, but not very useful.
To them, science itself and its results are simply part of the world as it is: a base condition for any understanding
And what if that understanding tells you his existence (as you want to understand it) becomes more and more improbable?
"He may have convinced you that miracles don't conflict with science but he hasn't convinced me."
Of course not Larry, because you both start with different initial assumptions. Big stinking whoop.
He didn't solve the problem for most people. He offered a potential solution that he at this point personally finds solice in. That was the point of the book.
the subtitle was: "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution?"
Not a scientists scientific solution that proves common ground between god and evolution.
gee whiz
"He may have convinced you that miracles don't conflict with science but he hasn't convinced me."
A question. What do you mean by miracles conflicting with science? Now, I can certainly see how the tools that science uses--namely logic, empirical study, and just plain-old detective work--can be used to demonstrate that the accounts of miracles that have been made over the years are likely the product of misunderstanding, "Chinese whispers", and so on. However, the ones who have wielded these tools toward this end haven't been professional scientists but rather professional skeptics like James Randi or philosophers like Hume (who have used far more informal observations). However, it is unclear to me if you have that in mind.
Oh I see torbjorn, one obviouslly can't be a theist and scientist I guess.
Why would Miller write a book with the subtitle, "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution?" It's a book about apologetics. The whole point is to address the conflict that everyone but you sees. He knows darn well that there's a conflict and that's why he takes 338 pages to try and make it go away.
Oh good lord, Larry! Are you down to Discovery Institute argumentation? Paying attention to a claim proves that the claim is correct? All those books by scientists and philosophers of science debunking ID proves it's true? If not, then Miller's attempt to explain why evolutionary theory need not be incompatable with theology is just that, an attempt to explain those complex ideas you admit to having trouble with.
And it is empirically false that I'm the only one that finds no conflict between Miller's sort of theology and science. After all you were the one complaining about how all the anticreationism crowd was attacking people who criticized Miller et al.
But you don't seem to care about facts in this debate, which is why I won't accept your unsupported assertion that Miller's beliefs contradict science.
As to whether Miller's is a God of the gaps, yes, there is an element of that, but remember that Miller is not making claims that quantum mechanics proves the existence of God, merely that it could be part of an explanation of how God operates in the world. The claim is in no way central to his theology. In any case, a criticism of his theology is just that: theology. If you want to say his theology is bad, be my guest. That has nothing to do with science either.
John Pieret says,
Oh good lord, Larry! Are you down to Discovery Institute argumentation? Paying attention to a claim proves that the claim is correct?
Of course not. But if a smart scientist like Miller has to write a 338 page book explaining away the conflict then it's safe to assume that there's something more than semantics going on.
The boundaries between science and religion always seem to so obvious to you. Very few scientists see it as clearly as you. That's why theistic evolutionists have to write books to explain their position.
As far as you are concerned, they're wasting their time. I agree, but for different reasons. :-)
[I]f a smart scientist like Miller has to write a 338 page book explaining away the conflict then it's safe to assume that there's something more than semantics going on.
Of course there is "something" going on, just as there is "something" going on with the tens of thousands of pages written by scientists against ID.
It is trivially true that the theology of some people contradicts science. A larger group thinks that science contradicts their theology out of ignorance of either the science or the theology or both. It is against those kinds of theology and against that ignorance that Miller argues.
But the very existence of these theistic evolutionists, that you keep complaining about so vociferously, demonstrates that religion and science need not contradict.
The boundaries between science and religion always seem to so obvious to you.
It's pretty easy when the person says "Here is my theology." Its when they say "Here is my new science," when it can get tough.
Very few scientists see it as clearly as you.
And, as a good scientist, you have empiric evidence as to how many scientists have problems with Miller's theology or telling the difference between it and science, right?
That's why theistic evolutionists have to write books to explain their position.
Were you under the impression that Miller was writing his book to explain his theology to scientists? That is certainly a unique interpretation that I suppose you can give us some basis for, right? I read it as a book he wrote for his fellow (nonscientist) theists to explain why he thinks science, which he holds is independent of and not properly under the influence of theology, does not contradict his theology and need not contradict others' theology.
As far as you are concerned, they're wasting their time. I agree, but for different reasons. :-)
Right. And you're wasting your time teaching too, I suppose, since scientists already know all that stuff. Oh, wait ... you want to share it with others ...
John Pieret asks.
Were you under the impression that Miller was writing his book to explain his theology to scientists? That is certainly a unique interpretation that I suppose you can give us some basis for, right?
I was under the impression that *part* of Miller's goal was to address the objections of his scientist colleagues. I think this is what Miller is saying on page 3 when he writes,
My purpose in this book is to attempt sopmething that is generally avoided. I want to ask a question that most of my colleagues shy away from, and to attack head-on the defenses that many of us have built up in our unwillingness to reconcile the two different answer to my question of "Who made us?" The question is whether or not God and evolution can coexist.
I think he's interested in refuting the defenses of his colleagues, while, at the same time, presenting the case for theistic evolution to the general public. In other words, he's trying to kill two birds with one stone.
I think this is what Miller is saying on page 3 when he writes,
My purpose in this book is to attempt sopmething that is generally avoided. I want to ask a question that most of my colleagues shy away from, and to attack head-on the defenses that many of us have built up in our unwillingness to reconcile the two different answer to my question of "Who made us?" The question is whether or not God and evolution can coexist.
Sorry, I don't see that. He is saying that scientists "generally avoid" such questions of theology ("Who made us," as he already explained, is a question from the Catholic Catechism). His purpose is clear at the end of the first chapter (p. 17) when he says:
A nonscientist reading the popular books of writers like [E.O. Wison, Dawkins and George C. Williams] might be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion that modern evolutionary science has ruled out the existence of God.
In response, he has written a popular book aimed at the nonscientist to give a "resounding no."
Any scientists out there: don't read this book because he's not aiming it at you. Although he might be refuting some of your defenses, just shut up and keep quiet about it because it's aimed at somebody else.
The defenses I think he is talking about are those scientists (particularly of a theistic bent) use to avoid getting involved in such questions.
This comment is not aimed at Mr. Pieret, by the way.
Opps. ;-)
Post a Comment