I confess to being slightly disappointed in this book, as, indeed, I was with "Finding Darwin's God". Miller does a pretty good job of demolishing ID 'theory' - not in itself a particularly difficult thing, given that there is not science in it, just religion and PR. But he seems to me to somewhat waste the opportunity to preach to the congregation from his position of a self confessed religious believer. He believes that the ID movement is an American problem (more than elsewhere, anyway) because of the American approach to being sceptical to authority. Perhaps they are, but surely the real reason is that there are so many born-again evangelicals who have been taught by their church that evolution is an evil. Which is nonsense, of course.

The real evil here are the IDists that want to throw out real science (and law, and everything else) and replace it with a theistic (aka my brand of Christianity only) approach. For the people of America, of all countries (with its open arms to the huddled masses and religious freedom and tolerance) to move towards being a church state is a frightening prospect. If this book will help religious people understand that they are being taken for a ride by the IDist, then it will have done its job. But I suspect it will not.

Professor Miller coauthored a pro-Darwinian high school biology textbook bought by a school in Pennsylvania that had an anti-Darwinian board. In an ensuing lawsuit (Kitzmiller v. Dover), a federal judge ruled that the science of intelligent design (ID) is pseudoscience concocted to unlawfully promote religion. If another board of education makes their students read Only a Theory, it will be guilty of the same crime. These are Miller's thoughts about the human spiritual soul and the purpose of life:

"It would be an act of unbridled arrogance for us to examine the living history of this planet and pronounce ourselves, in Gould's words, "the summit of life's purpose." Run the tape of life again, starting from the Cambrian or wherever one might choose, and it's almost inconceivable that you'd get hairless bipedal primates with brains big enough to endow them with self-awareness, reflective thought, and calculus." (p. 152)

The terms self-awareness and reflective thought do not refer to observable phenomena. We can comprehend self-awareness because we can transcend ourselves and make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. However, we can't give the term an operational definition, to use scientific terminology. There is a poetical and circular definition: Self-awareness is the result of directing our attention inwards and catching ourselves, as it were, in the act of our own existence. The existential experience of self-awareness and reflective thought means humans are indefinabilities or embodied spirits.

In the method of inquiry called metaphysics, humans are finite beings and members of a category of being labeled rational animal. Since finite beings need a cause, there must be at least one being in the universe that is infinite (God). Since humans are equal to one another and at the same time different, humans are compositions of the metaphysical principles called matter and form. Matter or body is the principle that makes difference intelligible, and form or soul is the principle that makes equality intelligible. While biology textbooks don't say so explicitly, it is understood that evolution only applies to the bodies of human beings, not their souls. According to the biologist Miller refers to above:

"Catholics could believe whatever science determined about the evolution of the human body, so long as they accepted that, at some time of his choosing, God had infused the soul into such a creature. I also knew that I had no problem with this statement, for whatever my private beliefs about souls, science cannot touch such a subject and therefore cannot be threatened by any theological position on such a legitimately and intrinsically religious issue." (Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History, March 1997, 13th paragraph)

Miller's hypothesis that humans are self-aware because they have big brains is a violation of the scientific method. The end result of such materialistic/atheistic reasoning is that Miller doesn't believe in the Bible or the Koran. The poor reasoning skills of many nonbelievers is another reason to believe in revelation.

Miller, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, would have us believe that biologists understand the evolution of complexity but can't explain it to the general population:

"The popular power of the ID argument rests on the ease with which one may point to any example of complexity and ask, "How come?" To prepare a cogent response, especially one that actually explains the evolution of complexity in an understandable manner, is beyond the popularizing ability of most scientists. And that means that the attacks of the ID movement place scientists and the scientific establishment in the pitiful defensive position of saying, "Trust us," on such issues." (p. 43)

The problem the complexity of life poses to Darwinian evolution was raised in a paper with the subtitle, "Conflict between the idea of natural selection and the idea of uniqueness of the gene does not seem to be near a solution yet" (Nature, Vol. 224, 1969, p. 342). The "conflict" is alluded to in the textbook used by 65 percent of biology majors in the United States:

"Each of the four identical polypeptide chains that together make up transthyretin is composed of 127 amino acids...The primary structure is like the order of letters in a very long word. If left to chance, there would be 20 to the 127th power different ways of making a polypeptide chain 127 amino acids long." (Neil A. Campbell and Jane P. Reece, Biology, 2008, p. 82)

The evolutionary significance of such a number is explained in a book on facilitated variation that Miller praises and quotes at great length. After explaining that "skeptics of evolution" question whether there was enough time for selection acting on variation to explain life, the authors of this book say:

"By comparison, if we question how long it would take a high-speed computer to write randomly a specific Shakespearean sonnet, we are asking that all the letters of the words of the sonnet will come up simultaneously in the correct order. It is an impossible task, even if all the computers in the world today had been working from the time of the big bang to the present. Even to compose the phrase, "To be or not to be," letter by letter, would take a typical computer millions of years." (Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma, 2005, p. 32)

Kirschner and Gerhart explain that natural selection is analogous to stopping the computer when it gets part of the phrase correctly, saving that part, and restarting the computer. Facilitated variation is analogous to programming the computer to generate only dictionary words. With such programming modifications a computer could reproduce by random chance "To be or not to be" in a short amount of time.

Getting back to Biology, Campbell and Reece never explicitly state that Darwinian evolution explains the complexity of life. In my opinion, they don't make such a statement because most biologists agree with the following analysis of Darwinian evolution:

"The theory sketched suggests something like a solution to the problem of how evolution leads towards what may be called "higher" forms of life. Darwinism as usually presented fails to give such a explanation. It can at best explain something like an improvement in the degree of adaptation." (Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Routledge Classics), 1992, p. 176)

Popper was a philosopher of science and based his views on the writings of biologists. The following quotes are supportive of Popper's critique:

"The result of this discussion is to suggest that we have perhaps been tempted to over simplify our account of the mechanism by which evolution is brought about. This mechanism--the evolutionary system, as it may be called--has often been envisaged as consisting of no more than a set of genotypes which are influenced, on the one hand, by a completely independent and random process of mutation and, on the other, by processes of natural selection which again are in no way determined by the nature of the genotypes submitted to them. Perhaps such a simplification was justified when it was a question of establishing the relevance of Mendelian genetics to evolutionary theory, but it can only lead to an impoverishment of our ideas if we are not willing to go further, now that it has served its turn." (C. H. Waddington, "Evolutionary Adaptation," The Evolution of Life, The University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 400)

"The conventional theory of evolution considers adaptation and evolution under the same terms of reference, both to be explained by random mutation, selective advantage, differential reproduction, etc. However, in my opinion, there is no scintilla of scientific proof that evolution in the sense of progression from less to more complicated organisms has anything to do with better adaptation, selective advantage or production of larger offspring." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, "Chance or Law," Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, p. 67)

"Considered thermodynamically, the problem of neo-Darwinism is the production of order by random events." (Bertalanffy, p. 76, op. cit.)

Popper advocates a variation of orthogenesis to improve Darwinian evolution and Waddington promotes a variation of Lamarckism. Kirschner and Gerhart compare facilitated variation with orthogenesis:

"Facilitated variation is not like orthogenesis, a theory championed by the eccentric American paleontologist Henry Osborn (1857-1935), which imbues the organism with an internal preset course of evolution, a program of variations unfolding over time. Natural selection remains a major part of the explanation of how organism have evolved characters so well adapted to the environment." (Kirschner and Gerhart, p. 247, op. cit.)

Kirschner and Gerhart refer to adaptation because claiming to have explained biological complexity would be overreaching. At least W. H. Thorpe would think so:

"I think we are all agreed that it is the development of complexity, which in the animal series as a whole, seems to show a continuing trend; and this trend is one of the major problems of present-day evolution theory ...And this again relates to the fascinating problems which are here and there ventilated in this book concerning the possibility that there is a non-random feature, perhaps at the very basis of the natural order, which may well have to be taken ultimately into account by biological theorists." (W. H. Thorpe, "Retrospect," Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, p. 432)

Kirschner and Gerhart don't prove that facilitated variation explains the increase in complexity from bacteria-life forms to multicellular organisms, and they admit they can't explain the complexity of bacteria. After mentioning the plans afoot to explore the solar system for clues about the origin of life, they say:

"Everything about evolution before the bacteria-like life forms is sheer conjecture, so we start this narrative with the bacteria-like ancestor and its complex collection of biochemical and molecular biological core processes." (Kirschner, op. cit., p. 50)

According to ID, Darwinian mechanisms can't explain the "irreducible complexity" or the "specified complexity" of living organisms. I recall my father showing me how our fingers become the same length when we make a fist. He was explaining how well-designed humans are and why God exists. ID advocates seem to be saying biological structures and systems like bacterial flagellum and intraflagellar transport are more complex than the human hand. Be this as it may, their argument seems to be no more than an assertion that life is too complex to have evolved in so short a time (three billion years) from Darwinian mechanisms given the small number of organisms that have existed.

On of the leading advocates of ID has an argument that strengthens Bertalanffy's statement about the absence of evidence supporting Darwinism:

"P. falciparum, HIV, and E. coli are all very, very different from each other. They range from the simple to the complex, have very different life cycles, and represent three different fundamental domains of life: eukaryote, virus, and prokaryote. Yet they all tell the same tale of Darwinian evolution. Single simple changes to old cellular machinery that can help in dire circumstances are easy to come by. This is where Darwin rules, in the land of antibiotic resistance and single tiny steps...There is no evidence that Darwinian process can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell. (Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, 2007, p. 162)

Miller's rebuttal is deceptive:

"In Behe's view, these are examples of nothing more than a kind of "trench warfare" in which the two species have progressively disabled or broken parts of themselves in order to survive. Nothing genuinely new, novel, or complex has resulted from this struggle, and we shouldn't expect otherwise. The reason, according to Behe, is that the sorts of changes we see in this well-studied interaction represent the limit, the "edge" of what evolution can accomplish. They can go this far and no further. A line in the sand is drawn, and the other side of that line is intelligent design.

"How does Behe know where to draw that line?" (p. 67)

Behe said that Darwinism fails on the other side of the line, not that intelligent design succeeds. The reason Miller pulls a switcheroo is that there is no disagreement between Behe and Miller about the science of evolution. The disagreement between them is the same as the disagreement between ID and mainstream science: Does the scientific method allow for explaining natural phenomena as acts of God or an intelligent designer?

In the opinion of the famous historian of science, Pierre Duhem, modern science began when the Bishop of Paris wrote a letter in 1277 condemning heresies based on the science of Aristotle. One of the heresies was that God could not create a vacuum. The Bishop of Paris knew that vacuums did not exist experimentally, but he and his advisors at the University of Paris could see no reason why vacuums could not exist. What this means is that reason and intelligibility are just as important to science as experimentation.

The big bang refers to the beginning of the universe 13.73 billion years ago as a homogeneous substance of great energy and density. The substance expanded, and protons and neutrons were formed one-millionth of a second later. Matter and energy has entirely different properties than the nothingness that preceded the big bang. I see nothing detrimental to to scientific discovery to hypothesize that God created the big bang.

Even the existence of hydrogen atoms may be the result of a creative act by God. Unbound electrons and protons combined to form hydrogen atoms 379,000 years after the big bang. It is true that Feynman diagrams predict the properties of a hydrogen atom with remarkable accuracy: mass, energy levels, total charge, and size. However, the Feynman/Schwinger/Dyson calculations are dubious because of a lack of mathematical rigorousness. It may be that electrons and protons do not possess the potential to form hydrogen atoms. If this is the case, then hydrogen atoms must have been created by an intelligent designer.

What drove Richard Feynman (1918-1988) was the assumption that the universe was intelligible. A universe in which a large brain can produce free will and conscious knowledge is an atheistic fantasy, not an intelligible universe. The transitions from nothingness to matter, from nonliving matter to living organisms, from plants to conscious animals, and from animals to human beings meant the appearance of new and entirely different properties. To assume, without reason, that these transitions occurred because of the potentialities inherent in the prior beings is unreasonable and unscientific. It is reasonable and scientific to hypothesize that the transitions occurred because of God's creative power.

As someone who taught math and science for many years (mostly in religious schools), I am very concerned about the problem of science illiteracy in this country. Fundamental to this problem is a lack of understanding about what constitutes science and what does not. And there is probably not a more obvious example of this issue than the anti-evolution movement in this country. It has appeared in many guises, most recently under the name of Intelligent Design (ID).

The flip side to this problem is the lack of effort on the part of the scientific community to promote the scientific viewpoint in a way that the larger population can understand and accept. There are many pieces to this but one aspect is the disrespect and disdain that scientists too often show for people they deem "too religious" or simply "too stupid."

What makes Professor Miller's book an excellent one is that he seems to understand both sides here. He takes on the idea of Intelligent Design from a scientific perspective, showing that it does not fulfill the requirements of science, while at the same time treating the concept with respect and due diligence. The hard core on both sides of the issue will probably not be swayed or satisfied, but most open-minded people will find much of value in his balanced approach.

The way he manages this in the first part of the book is by working from the assumption that ID is, in fact, a scientific theory and then he puts it through its paces as such. Along the way, he shows the qualities that are lacking in ID to consider it a scientific theory and that, despite the way some people use the phrase "only a theory" in a derogatory manner, there are rigorous qualities necessary for an idea to be elevated to the level of scientific theory.

He also takes the primary arguments of ID and refutes them, despite the fact they are asserted without evidence. His evaluation of irreducible complexity, for example, I find to be one of the most lucid and effective that I have read. He takes most of the favorite examples--flagella, blood clotting, etc.--and offers the compelling evolutionary argument for these. But his best example is probably the mousetrap, something that most people understand somewhat better that microorganisms and genetics.

Of course, the problem with a book like this is that the people that most need to read it are unlikely to bother with it, which is too bad. I don't know what Professor Miller's religious beliefs might really be but I think he represents the best qualities of the scientist: he's rigorous about what clearly lies in the scientific domain but astute enough to realize that there are things that lie beyond it, and here is where faith resides, even for a scientist (though many would refuse to admit it). He keeps a good tone throughout this very well-written book, only rarely slipping in a swipe at ID believers.

Ultimately, for those of us who want to open the eyes of those who do not understand science in general and evolution in particular, this book is a source of well-reasoned argument and examples worth borrowing. Professor Miller deserves to be commended for a fine book.

Anyone who doesn't know anything about Kenneth Miller would probably assume from the first half of this book that he is an atheist. But no, like Francis Collins, of Human Genome fame, he is a Christian. Many Christians don't have any problems with accepting evolution as being true, as does apparently the Catholic Church, which apparently believes that Creation is allegorical, and actually is represented by God breathing the soul into ancestors of humans at some unspecified time.
Ken Miller really nailed the vacuousness of Intelligent Design's favourite analogy, the mouse trap. I notice that Michael Behe was really very upset about this in his review of this book. I am not surprised; his webpage on his university biological science's website has the mouse trap prominently displayed. Mainly because his webpage would otherwise be rather bare. His colleagues have long lists of publications in real scientific journals. All he has to show is chapters in doubtful books and op-ed articles in newspapers. He also complains that Miller doesn't have anything new to say rebutting ID, but then again, it is difficult to came up with anything new when ID also hasn't produced anything either.
Philip Henry Gosse published "Omphalos" in 1857 (2 years before Darwin's "Origin of Species") suggesting that God created the Earth within the last 10000 years just to look very old. Gosse's suggestion didn't go down very well then, because it would have meant that He was just a deceiver. As Miller points out, if Intelligent Design is correct then God would have to be a serial creator, and not a particularly intelligent designer; creating species, allowing them to go extinct, then recreating species almost exactly the same ad infinitum.
All the evidence we have (including the DNA evidence from all the species that have been examined) shows exactly the picture that we would expect if evolution were true, and nothing contradicts it. God would have to be a deceiver of monumental proportions if Intelligent Design were true.
I only have one quibble with this book. I think he must have had a slip of the word processor, because he called the Australian dingo a marsupial. It is of course a dog. I think he must have been thinking about the thylacine (or Tasmanian wolf).

Author Kenneth Miller demolished intelligent design in this book. (And that's not to say that his is the only book that has done so.) You would never guess that by the continuing attempts by the Discovery Institute and its sympathizers to foist this front for creationism on local schools. But that is not even the most despicable part of ID. They want to change the nature of science so that ID can somehow be included as real science. Instead of having scientific explanations for natural phenomena, IDers want it said in science classrooms that "God did it.". While there are many gods out there, what they have in mind is their own particular distorted version of the Christian god. Miller bends over backwards to give ID every possible chance to win this argument by fact and logic. He seems almost to give the game away. But then he springs the trap and turns the logic and the facts in the direction that they point and shows that ID fails, even by its own definitions. "Specified complexity" falls, the religious-based philosophy of ID is exposed, and the sham "science" of ID is shown to be, not merely empty, but non-existent. After reading this book, you will continue to support ID (if you did) at the peril of your grasp of logic and your facts.

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.

"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.

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 protégé 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 naïve 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.

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"

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.

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.

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 read 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 billions). 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

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.

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

Whoever said that this is a magisterial refutation of ID is either in cahoots with Miller, totally ignorant or needs to have their head examined.

What was Miller thinking? Just because he is a respected member of the scientific community and author of high school and college textbooks did he assume no one was going to question the veracity of the passages in his book.

I will point one out that to me is flagrantly egregious and easily refuted.

In Chapter 3 entitled Embracing Design, Miller is attempting to discredit Behe's contention that the immune system is irreducibly complex and would never be explained by Neo Darwinian Evolution.

Miller indicates that research conducted with the way transposons (a class of DNA molecules) moved from point to point on the genome had a strong biochemical similarity with antibody gene shuffling. This resulted in what Miller claims is proof that immune system evolved.

So how does Miller assess Professor Behe's reaction in his book? He refers to the Dover Trial where Behe as an expert witness was confronted with 58 peer reviewed publications, 9 books, and several immunology chapters all dealing with the evolution of the immune system.

Apparently, Miller does not have a good recollection of what took place during that confrontation because he relies on Judge Jones to misrepresent what Professor Behe had to say.

Here's Miller quoting Judge Jones' account of the confrontation: "However, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and this it was not `good enough.'" A couple of paragraphs later Miller goes on to attribute the quote "It's not good enough for me" to Behe when referring to the evidence presented to him in the courtroom.

Now anyone who doesn't know any better and reads this account in Miller's book will come away thinking what an incompetent boob Behe is for making that statement. There is little doubt that this was Miller's intention.

Is this what really happened or was it a blatant misrepresentation? Fortunately, all one needs to do is go to the internet and pull up the transcripts of the trial. The following excerpt is the verbatim testimony of what transpired during that confrontation between the questioning attorney Mr. Rothschild and Professor Behe:

Question: Now these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

Behe: No they certainly do not. My answer or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Question: So these are not good enough?

Behe: They're wonderful articles. They very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.

Question: Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step by step description?

Behe: These article are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

One can clearly see that Miller misrepresented the quote "It's not good enough for me" by attributing it to Professor Behe when he never uttered those words.

Secondly, in his book Miller never addresses Behe's assertion that when it came to the overwhelming evidence for the supposed evolution of the immune system, not one mention was made to demonstrate that the Neo Darwinian mechanism of random mutation coupled with natural selection had anything to do with it.

It's easy to see why Miller needs to misrepresent the truth because he knows he's fighting an uphill battle. He even states in his book "that in the eyes of many Americans the case for ID is compelling." Furthermore he admits that "Design is winning" and Darwinian evolution will always fall short."

Miller could utilize every trick in the book to try to prop up NDE, however, in the end all his book will amount to is the last gasp of a dying theory.

The only reason to read this book would be if you needed to hone your skills at misrepresentation. Other than that don't bother with it.

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.

OK, so there is no shortage of tantrums by the anti-evolutionists either.

Once again, my nomination of "The Straw Man" for Man of the Year has been vindicated in tedious detail by Ken Miller. At least Ken can write well.

But the bottom line of the debate is this: Which scientific ideology threatens to destroy America, along with banning Moms and Apple Pies?

The answer, ofcourse, is "neither". Creationists created science in the first place, for crying out loud. And Evolutionists (as I used to be) who happen to be scientists get up most mornings every year and do their rational bests to make progress in their research without giving a moments thought to Evolution or Darwin. It doesn't matter which you believe--as long as you spend as little time as possible debating the question.

This is like the Global Warming debate: Are we doomed or just dim-witted? Everyone has an interest in ending pollution and conserving resorces and has plenty of motivation to clean up the planet, with or without the fear of where their grandchildren will go to the beach for vacations (Baja or the Aleutians). There is plenty of reason for all ilks to be good scientists without their having to bow down to Darwin or, uh, Phil Johnson, perhaps?

I am a retired Intelligence Analyst (IA: searching for the designs our enemies have against us) and a current technologist (ET=Ed Tech) and a linguist who analyzes how people communicate (mostly, fail to communicate). Even though I am nobody, I can assure everybody that the vast army of committed Christians that I have worked with throughout my life aren't even slightly inclined to carry out their complex jobs with less "rationalism" and scientific rigor because they are Creationists. (OK, as a linguist even I know that that sentence is convoluted.)

"Only a Theory" is an excellent Title for this book, which is in fact an argument about the "words" that ID proponents use. Miller isn't arguing about the facts of life but about the words people use to explain the facts of life. In intelligence circles we call this "propaganda". In the State Department they call it "diplomacy".

But in any case it is all words and it is all BS.

Execellent book. Unfortunately, those who would benefit the most from it probably won't read it. They are the ones who think that calling something "only a theory" somehow implies that it isn't real. They may be thinking of the meaning of the word hypothesis instead of theory.

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.

Miller does a great job of making his thoughts understandable to the non-scientist such as myself. He also does very well building his argument, but does not convince me that evolution is more than "only a theory." His fear of ID I do not fully understand, because his belief "the world that knew we were coming" is itself ID, even if not to the extent of how ID is defined today.

The first four chapters address specific "flaws" in evolution theory as viewed by ID, giving answers to them from scientific findings that give credence to evolution. The next two chapters "Life's grand design" and "The world that knew we were coming" I found written to address purpose in life. Because science is a study of the material world, these chapters look to be written to address a primary issue from those adhering to ID, and show that a person can believe in evolution and in god and purpose in life.

Miller's greatest concern seems to be for the America's scientific soul, which is the primary target of the last two chapters. In addressing this he is quite critical (though also respectful, which he is throughout the book, something I appreciated very much in his writing) of christians seeking to bring God into the science area. However, while he disagrees with Steven Jay Gould's belief in no God, he is not equally critical of this thought being brought into the discussion of evolution. When it comes to the origin of life, I do not see how God can be eliminated from discussion. While I understand god is beyond the technical definition of science, most people would at least question a god/intelligent designer/greater beiing, when studying the origin of life/earth/universe. Many evolutionists, such as Gould, have been quite vocal of how their understanding of science has impacted their belief in god. If you are going to take belief in god out of science then it needs to be both ways not just believing in god.

Even though I have my disagreements with Miller, I think it is an excellent book and it made me think and give more consideration to what I believe. When a book does this, it is worthy of reading.

Last year I left evangelicalism in favor of agnosticism. A major reason for my departure was twenty-four years of negative experiences within the Church. However, another important impetus was an exposure to deeper levels of science and rationality through the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Stenger, and others. I had become tired of living with the tension between various conflicting ideas that Christianity requires of a believer, and these authors suggested a more rational alternative. One area of tension in particular was the dissonance between evolution and intelligent design (ID). "Only A Theory" addresses this battle, and it's one of the best and most tactful books I've read on the subject. Indeed, it should act as the obsolescence notice that ID has needed for a long time.

"Only A Theory" focuses on the American battlefront concerning evolution and ID. The two foes recently went head-to-head in Pennsylvania, where both camps were put on trial as a result of the Dover Board of Education's desire to add ID instruction in public school. After hearing testimony from both sides (including the author and ID proponent Michael Behe) and examining the evidence, the court ruled that ID was another name for religious creationism, and it was thrown out of the academic setting. Mr. Miller was encouraged by science's courtroom triumph, but given the strength and righteous indignation of the ID movement, he fears for the future of evolution and the scientific method. The title of this book reflects that concern, since one of ID's biggest catchphrases is that evolution is "only a theory," and therefore other competing "theories" like ID deserve equal hearing.

The author has reason to be afraid. As a former evangelical Christian and seminary graduate, I can affirm that ID is a user-friendly term for a faith-based system of thought that stands at odds with rational science. I've seen "Darwinism" portrayed by the Church as a subtle tool of satanic forces arrayed against God's faithful. Rationalism is considered a slippery slope to atheism and moral relativism, as exemplified by Nietzsche, Nazism, and Communism. To counter this darkness, believers such as Henry Morris responded with scientific creationism. However, that term sounded too religious, so the name was changed to the more palatable "intelligent design." ID star Michael Behe wrote books advocating ID-centric ideas like "irreducible complexity" (IC) to show that gradual evolution could not have produced complex biological organs or processes. Do the proponents of ID have a point, or are they simply in over their heads?

The author argues the latter. He categorically rejects the idea that ID has any scientific merit, and correctly labels it as a philosophical branch of evangelical Christianity. However, far from the polemic statements made by Dawkins and Hitchens, Mr. Miller presents the facts underlying modern science and evolution in a non-inflammatory way. Although he acknowledges that individuals can be biased, he casts science as a non-ideological truth-seeking discipline because of its reliance on natural laws, provable facts, and repeatable results that are independent of political leaning. With that in mind, he's not afraid of demolishing irreducible complexity by citing recent scientific discoveries about its favorite examples, such as the eye, blood clotting, and bacterial flagellum.

But the author is most concerned with ID's dual fatal flaws, two gaping logical holes that would damage American leadership in science and rational progress if ID supplanted evolution as a basis of life's origin. First he shows that ID is really just a fancy term for creationism by quoting ID documents and statements made by its proponents. Bottom line, ID ultimately relies on untestable and unrepeatable supernatural influence vs. testable and repeatable processes based on natural laws. Second, Mr. Miller is convinced that ID encourages laziness of thought, as demonstrated by irreducible complexity. IC makes it easy to view an evolutionary difficulty not as a knowledge barrier to overcome, but as a demonstration of God's creative ability that might as well be left unchallenged. That's a dangerous attitude because it discourages rigorous scientific investigation, ironically by introducing a relativist religious bent based on one faith's concept of God.

This approach was exemplified by my last Christian mentor, who sternly told me that I should simply have faith and accept the writings of Josh McDowell and C. S. Lewis - or face God's corrective "2x4 and lightning bolts." Needless to say, I was not impressed with his line of "reasoning." This "don't ask questions" attitude permeates ID (not to mention church dogma), and flies in the face of rational thought and proven scientific methods. If science merely accepted past findings and failed to innovate, we'd still be riding horse and buggy and living without electricity (much as the Amish faithful do today). I couldn't live with checking my brain at the church door, so I parted ways with my teacher and my faith.

My above experience enables me to identify with the author's fears for the future of science and rationalism, especially due to the rise of conservative evangelicalism in America. As a former evangelical, I know how tenaciously Christians cleave to their belief system. Even thoughtful and well-meaning believers tend to ask safe questions and avoid confronting the holes in ID and church dogma because they fear God's wrath or loss of Christian fellowship. But as in the movie "300," I hope that the advocates of rationality will triumph over the forces of mysticism. Well-written and thoughtful books like "Only a Theory" will certainly help, and it has my highest recommendation. Other good books that deal with science and faith are "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design," by Michael Shermer; "God: The Failed Hypothesis," by Victor J. Stenger; and "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin" by David Quammen.

"Science has prospered in this country because to a great degree its character matches the American character. In short, America as a scientific soul. We are practical, pragmatic, demanding. We want to see the evidence, and because we tend not to rely on authority, we want to see it for ourselves.... We serve as an incubator of ideas, an engine of scientific creativity that has lifted the condition of mankind everywhere and opened new horizons of ndersatnding from which the rest of the world can draw." Miller, Only a Theory, p. 15)


That, of course, is one view of America. One might sardonically say, using Miller's words, that it is "only a theory." A chart presented on page 214 of the book presents another: according to the 2005 survey presented therein, the US scored in 33rd place in its citizens' acceptance of evolutionary theory. We are one place ahead of Turkey, one palce behind Cyprus and a chief economic rival - Japan - is 29 places above us at number 5.

Ken Miller writes Only a Theory out of concern that the intelligent design movement threatens to compromise the state of America's barely-surviving scientific preeminence. To borrow his words, ID threatens to gut America of its "scientific soul." It does this by changing what it means to do science: if science can be theistic, then why even bother looking for natural explanations to things? If you can't get enough real evidence for your claim, set up a court hearing and let judges decide. Can't get published in journals? Write a books for the popular press, do some op-eds for a newspaper, and get political support. If intelligent design succeeds in its current missions, all of these methods will be validated and, in turn, nations that actually do science will become the scientific leaders in the world.

Of course, before we can ask what will happen if people actually believe that stuff, we have to demonstrate why believing that stuff is sloppy thinking and bad science. Miller does and does and does. His method is to take ID at its word: does it offer a solid research program? No. Has it ever? No. Is the fossil evidence more consistent with design than evolution? Very much no. (Miller points out that if design were true, that would mean that the designer would have had to keep on designing new forms as the previous ones die out, all of which slightly resemble their predecessors to the point of plagarism. Or is it more likely that they evolved?)

Miller offers countless examples to show evolution much more likely and sensical than ID. If ID were true, how would it account for the idea that apes, chimps and humans - no other animals - have 23, rather than 24, pairs of chromosomes, and that ONLY these three species have a chromosome two that consists of two fused-together chromosomes? If evolution is used, the explanation is simply that our common ancestor carried this genetic "misstep" and, as descendents of "it," we also inherited this. ID has no great answer. Genetics also shows that several benign copying errors are found on many related species while not found on other species. Time after time after time Miller presents us with evidences that fit completely well into an evolutionary scheme, but would appear convoluted and nonsensical under a scheme which denied macroevolution. True to our American love for pragmatism, Miller shows that evolution makes sense of the disperate data and is corroborated time after time. ID, on the other hand, is as useless in its ability to make prediction, to generate ANY line of independent research (as the only place for it to go is into theology), and to fit the known facts. (No, I do not pretend that Miller's evidence against ID will be strong enough to convince its proponents, but I don't think much will.)

After Miller shows why it is foolish to believe intelligent design, he goes on to show why it might be dangerous to science in the long run. First, he shows that ID is "irreducible theology" in that it seeks to redefine sciecne to allow supernatural theories to qualify as scientific. Of course, doing that is simply death to science. Why try and find out any more about HIV, if we can just scientifically posit that God did it to punish us for our sins? Why bother to discover how DNA began, if we can just posit that an invisible "designing fairy" did it? In short, Miller rightly worries that if supernaturalism is allowed to be scientific, we can just stop the whole discipline right there, as we could "theologize" explanations for any- and everyhing. (Miller even shows us a great example where Behe advocated that research into a certain area was hopeless, only to find out how wrong he was. Thank goodness Behe's supernaturalism didn't win the day.)

Lastly, Miller sets out a case that, were ID to win the day, it would succumb science to the type of relativism (all claims are on equal footing), politicization (let the courts and Rick Santorum deicde) and rhetoricization that has chewed apart so many humanities and social science fields. Using Allan Bloom convservative "Closing of the American Mind," Miller argues that the very thins Bloom could railed against in academia are now being used by the ID crowd to rip science apart.

As Richard Dawkins (among others) have remarked, "there is a thing called being so open-minded that your brains fall out." This is largely the case made in Miller's book. Science may be hospitable to the American character of questioning authority, but it is not the democracy that ID would make it into. All claims are not created equal. Evolution has shown itself to be the clear winner amongst the sciences. ID has shown itself to be the clear winner amongs Evangelical churches, one think tank in Seattle, and public opinion polls. MIller's argument may sound undemocratic, but it is quite valid: science is what science does, and science does evolution.

Dr. Ken Miller is a churchgoing Christian that also happens to be a trained biologist and one of the most vocal and capable defenders of evolution. One of Miller's strengths is that he has a keen understanding of the political, social, and legal conditions that have given rise to the intelligent design movement.

The intelligent design movement is really a legal strategy designed to circumvent court rulings that forbid the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. It is also, however, a grassroots political strategy designed to unite persons of faith against evolution.

The pursuit of the former goal is, of course, the reason that ID proponents are so adamant about replacing the word "God" with the euphamistic "intelligent designer". In pursuit of the latter goal, they relentlessly attempt to portray evolution as being the equivalent of atheism. If they can successfully convince persons of faith that they must choose between evolution and their religion, they can scare up quite a bit of grassroots political support. This strategy, unfortunately, ignores the reality that there are millions of deeply religious Americans that accept the scientific evidence for evolution. Dr. Miller is one such person and, as such, his is a voice that needs to be heard.

Miller has a real gift for demolishing unsound arguments in an easy to understand, easy to read, entertaining way. His tone is consistently respectful and mature -- a welcome change from the venom that so often characterizes evolution-creationism debates.

Behe, Dembski, and the other intelligent design advocates attack evolution by pointing to highly complex biological systems and arguing that they could not have evolved because they have too many crucial components to have developed gradually. They seem to think that complex, multi-part biological systems can evolve only by accumulating, one by one, component parts that are useless until the complete system is in place. The flaws in that argument have been pointed out by many already, but I haven't seen anyone do it better than Miller does here. Miller gets it exactly right -- complex, multi-part biological systems evolve by co-opting elements of pre-existing systems and modifying them (or modifying a copy of them) for a new use. He walks us through several specific examples that show, in plenty of detail, how this happens. He does an excellent job of working the reader through the logic in a way that allows the open-minded reader to clearly understand the error that Behe and Dembkski are making.