Science news and science current events, research and discoveries.
Top science news articles and science current events stories from the past week.
Science Resources
Science RSS News Feeds
Earth, Life and Space Science RSS News Feeds.
|
 |
 |
 |
| View Larger Image | Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
by Kenneth R. Miller
| | List Price: | $25.95 | | Price: | $17.13 | | You Save: | $8.82 (34%) |  | | Available: | Usually ships in 24 hours | | | | | Sales Rank: | 8445 | | Studio: | Viking Adult | | | Binding: | Hardcover | | Number Of Pages: | 256 | | Publication Date: | June 12, 2008 | | Publisher: | Viking Adult |
| |
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 Darwin’s 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 Pennsylvania’s landmark 2005 Dover evolution trial.
Unlike other books on the subject, Only a Theory’s critique of ID goes far beyond the scientific claims of the movement. To Miller, America’s “soul”—its place as the world’s leading scientific nation—is 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 (Average Customer Rating: 4.0 based on 31 reviews)
|
Which is "the Battle for America's Soul"? 
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.
August 20, 2008 | |
An absurd treatise of apocalyptic fantasy and overblown rhetoric 
Jerry Coyne the eminent Professor of biology at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution and steadfast critic of ID wrote a review of a book by David P. Mindell called the Evolving World: Evolution in Every Day Life that was published in Nature 8/31/2006, Vol. 442, p983-984. Here is a quote from that article, "...if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvements in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like.' Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."
I found it also interesting to note that Coyne goes on to state that of the two commercial uses for evolution that he's aware of, one includes the use of directed evolution to produce commercial products such as enzymes to protect crops and plants from herbicides. And we all know that another way of describing directed evolution is with the term Intelligent Design. Yes indeed when it comes to the advances (especially with molecular evolution) that have been attained over the past century it is the application of intelligent design in concert with the development of new methodologies and instrumentation that have guided researchers to their goals.
One would never know that from reading Miller's book. Coyne takes a pragmatic approach with respect to the distinction between micro and macroevolution, noting the irrelevancy of the latter in the pursuance of scientific experimentation. Coyne is cognizant of the fact that whenever examples are cited detailing research instrumental to evolution, they all involve microevolution. Miller on the other hand makes no such distinction. When Miller cites in his book that evolution is the "glue that binds the biological sciences together" he is adamant in his assertion that macroevolution is just as scientifically germane as microevolution, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is the empirical case for macroevolution remains on a shaky foundation, and as Coyne alludes to in his article macroevolution makes no noteworthy contributions when it comes to experimental biology. I doubt that any scientist, even Professor Miller, would conduct any experiments differently if they were under the impression that macroevolution were unequivocally baseless.
Theodisius Dobzhansky's maxim that "nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution," only makes sense when applied to microevolution. As we have seen time and again this is where Darwinism works reasonably well and not only that, most advocates of ID accept microevolution.
Miller acknowledges that NDE has a long uphill battle and is on the defensive. Even though he admits on page 35 that scientists do not know how the flagellum evolved; he reiterates the same worn out stale arguments he used at the Dover Trial to try to refute ID. Hasn't he figured it out that his arguments have been rebutted successfully; they haven't worked in 3 years since that trial, they are not going to work now in this book. He knows he has been losing ground yet he still pursues a failed policy. It doesn't make sense.
That leads me to believe that the purpose of Miller's book is solely for its use as a rallying cry to inflame the passions of the Neo Darwinists in continuing their assault against the Intelligent Design movement. As far as those who are new to the controversy, anyone who objectively reads this book will come away with more questions than answers. Therefore, someone has to fire up votaries of the NDE and for a number of reasons he is the logical choice. He does not let them down. Miller's incendiary rhetoric is best illustrated on page 201, "The partisans of ID are lobbing intellectual napalm into the scientific community, and so great is their enthusiasm for their tactical objectives that they remain oblivious to the fact that nothing will remain but ashes and dust if their attack is successful." What a bunch of metaphoric bombast!
His paranoia is really manifested in Chapter 7 when in citing a change in the definition of science by the Kansas School Board and using skewed rhetoric, Miller was afraid that astrology, paganism, and wiccan healing will fall into the realm of science. What Miller fails to tell you is that by describing science as an open-ended search for more adequate or reliable explanations of the natural world using empirical methods, it implies nothing about the supernatural. Also, Miller advocates teaching all aspects of evolution while discouraging a critical analysis of it. That is not only wrong, it defies common sense and it is antithetical to the goals of education. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with advancing a religious bias as he so paranoiacally suspects.
In short this book can be summed up in one sentence: a desperate attempt at saving and perpetuating macroevolution from the juggernaut of Intelligent Design. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked since the atrocious decision at the Dover Trial and it's not going to work now.
August 18, 2008 | |
It takes the Mundane, Arcane, & Germane ... Grabs you by the neck, and Entertains! 
This is a surprisingly engaging effort by Mr. Miller. Reading Only a Theory is akin to watching a captivating movie filled with intriguing special effects, robust characters , and a suspenseful plot ... with twists, turns, and Olympic hurdles!
For years I have been grappling with the question: Which came first, the chicken or the proverbial egg? You can not imagine my delight when I discovered Only a Theory ... a book about Intelligent Design (ID) Theory versus Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the ultimate question for scientific and religious scholars: How did my Persian cat and the rest of mankind get here?
My original game plan in writing reviews was to adhere to this philosophy: Stay far, far away from politics, sports, and religion (they are too controversial and someone always loses). In spite of my past convictions, I find myself writing a review on a book that manages to make sport of politics, and religion. A trifecta! However, everyone from students to scholars ... will enjoy this marvelous treat from Kenneth Miller.
If you like imaginative courtroom drama, Perry Mason can't hold a candle to the final closing arguments (the book is based upon this trial). It takes place in the quaint town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Biology Professor, Kenneth Miller, (Brown University) was one of the expert witnesses at the trial. He had the jury, judge, and me ... intrigued by his take-no-prisoners testimony.
My favorite section is when testimonies from both sides explore the bio chemical systems (of which the body produces thousands). These machine-like marvels of nature control thousands of functions in perfect symmetry, harmony, and precision. They are called "bacterial flagellum". (I remember the name because they remind me of my ex wife, but I digress). If you liked Movies featuring The Terminator (starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and The Transformers (starring Shia LaBeouf), you will be enthralled by these beauties.
In the end both sides won some points (in my opinion). There are still gaps in both theories in which proponents say: Trust me. Only a Theory should be a valuable addition to any library. You will love it. Trust me!
Reviewed by Reggie Johnson, President, Success-Tapes.Com
August 16, 2008 | |
Evolution is scientific; ID isn't
The author, Ken Miller, was one of the expert witnesses for the evolution side in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, and Michael Behe was the main expert for the ID-iots. After reading this book, it's clear why the evolutionists won and why the presiding judge described what the ID-iots had done as "breathtaking inanity."
Scientific theories must be testable, and as Miller points out, ID is not testable in any meaningful way, so ID is not science at all.
ID-iots do propose some testable hypotheses, of course, however those hypotheses are not specifically about ID itself, rather they are about the so-called "limits of evolution." No one seriously disputes that evolution is a scientific theory, so it's not surprising that hypotheses about evolution -- and its alleged limits -- are in fact testable. Unfortunately, as Miller points out, testing the ID-iots' anti-evolution hypotheses shows that those hypotheses are wrong. For example:
1. Behe claims that the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex (IC), and therefore needs all of its parts to work. In reality, however, some vertebrates are missing some parts of the cascade, and yet their blood still clots just fine. Even worse for the ID-iots, there is also evidence indicating that key parts of the blood-clotting cascade may actually have evolved from protein domains that: 1) had nothing to do with blood-clotting, and 2) didn't even originate in vertebrates. (pp. 62-66) Ouch!
2. Behe claims that IC systems can't evolve step-by-step, because intermediate stages have no function at all, and therefore cannot be preserved by natural selection. In reality, however, most, if not all of the IC systems that Behe himself proposed, including the bacterial flagellum, have subsets of parts (i.e., intermediate stages) that do have functions. The function of intermediate stages may be, and frequently is, different from the function of the full system; but a function is a function, and if it's beneficial to the organism, then natural selection can preserve it, making it a target for further adaptive modifications. The bacterial flagellum doesn't look at all like a machine designed from scratch and constructed with all new parts, rather it looks just like evolutionists would expect: a conglomeration of spare parts scavenged from here and there, held together with duct tape and baling wire. (pp. 53-62)
3. Behe's famous 10^40 claim in "Edge of Evolution," about the enormous odds against any evolutionary pathway requiring the evolution of two or more protein binding sites is based on a glaring (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the evidence. (pp. 66-69)
4. Dembski claims that intuition tells us that if law can't produce complex specified information (CSI), and if chance can't produce CSI, then a combination of law and chance can't produce CSI either. (p. 39) As Miller points out, however, intuition is not a very reliable standard. After all, intuition is what told humans for millennia that Earth was flat and stationary. (p. 84) Furthermore, computer programs that mimic evolution's mutation-selection process -- which essentially is a combination of law and chance -- routinely produce CSI. (pp. 74-78)
5. Even worse for the ID-iots, Dembski's claim that new genes cannot be produced by natural processes is shattered by evidence that Mother Nature has indeed produced new genes, quite a few times, and fairly recently. And Mother Nature's accomplishment has been replicated under laboratory conditions, thus enabling scientists to actually observe evolution while it was taking place. (pp. 79-82)
Chapter Four deals with fascinating evidence from the field of genomics, using DNA evidence to establish the genealogical links between widely separated species, just as modern courts use DNA evidence to establish genealogical links between parents and their children. DNA evidence is considered conclusive in the courts. There's no reason why it shouldn't be considered conclusive in evolutionary biology.
Chapter Five includes a discussion of embryological evidence that also provides strong support for evolution.
Most of the last half of the book focused on the publicity and political campaigns that ID-iots rely on to promote ID. (If ID-iots spent any time actually doing science, maybe they wouldn't need to rely so heavily on publicity campaigns. Just a thought.)
This is an excellent book, very accessible, even for laymen.
August 10, 2008 | |
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
August 07, 2008 | |
SIMILAR PRODUCTS |
| |
|
|
|
|
