Darwin's God Discussion 2: Chapters 3-5

In these chapters Miller addresses the primary objections to Darwin's theory of Evolutionary including Young Earth Creationism, Punctuated Equilibrium, and Intelligent Design. I'll try to summarize his discussion of each:

1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC): This is the idea that the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old. If I understand it correctly, this age is determined by adding up the various geneologies found throughout the Bible beginning with Adam and Eve. While derived from a very strict interpretation of scripture (i.e., 7 days of creation means 7 days comprised of 24 hours each), it couches it's arguments in (pseudo)scientific terminology in order that this interpretation of scripture be included in scientific discussions. Miller goes to great lengths in this chapter to explain the various dating techniques used that demonstrate the earth and fossil record are much older than 10 thousand years. These techniques corroborate with one another to show the earth as 4.5 billion years old, which allows ample time for evolution to occur. From a theological perspective, Miller argues that in order for YEC to be correct, God must have intentionally and deceptively made the Earth and the fossil record look much older than 10 thousand years, which would be contrary to his understanding of God's nature.

2. Punctuated equilibrium (PE): A less strict interpretation of scripture has led a number of creationists to accept the apparent age of the earth while still maintaining that every species currently or previously in existence was created through special and independent acts of creation by God rather than through evolution. PE is a term coined by Eldredge and Gould to suggest that there were 'sudden' changes within certain lines of descent which contrasts with the Darwinian notion of gradual and constant adaptation and speciation (called phyletic gradualism). These apparent abrupt appearances of new species are used by some creationists to suggest that God performed a special act of independent creation at that time to form a new species. It's important to note that this was not Eldredge and Gould's intention or understanding when they came up with PE, but the idea has been adopted in this manner. While it seems possible that rapid environmental changes may 'speed up' evolutionary processes, Miller points out that these 'sudden' changes are more apparent than they are real. He shows that if one zooms in on the time scale during these abrupt changes, evolution appears to slow down, and show continuous and gradual change. Meaning that the appearance of abrupt changes is more a reflection of the scaling used over immensly long periods of time and that punctuated equilibrium is ultimately not distinguishable from Darwin's original conception of Evolution. From a theological perspective, Miller argues that this take on creation necessarily suggests a God who not only creates, but destroys his creation as well, in addition to the suggestion that God is constantly tinkering with his creation in order to 'improve' the final product. He says this is inconsistent with the notion of a loving creator God who is capable of creating something perfect on the first try, and thus he rejects it on both scientific and theological grounds.

3. Intelligent design (ID): ID is the most recent idea used to challenge Darwinian evolution, it's primary argument is based on the notion of 'irreducible complexity'. Which is to say that for evolution to work, biological structures need to have been build bit by bit, if any one of these bits is incapable of functioning as a peice rather than a whole or serves no apparent purpuse, then it could not have evolved to become a more complex functional structure. Miller states that this is a good point because it provides a testable hypothesis which he fully supports testing. He then puts evolution to the test using various examples, many of which are the same examples that ID proponents say represent irreducible complexity, and shows that these examples are in fact reducible to smaller simpler components. This is seen in small microscopic organisms and structures and in larger structures such as the human eye, in each of the examples evolution is supported by the data rather than refuted. Miller also calls this bad theology since it uses gaps in our understanding as proof of God's role in creation (called 'god in the gaps') which ultimately leaves the belief in God vulnerable to science filling in those gaps. Miller feels that belief in God must go much deeper than our gaps in understanding.

Throughout the discussion of these three ideas, Miller is making the point that science and evolution are fully capable of explaining a number of things that historically we've only been able to explain as divine intervention. He suggests that for people of faith evolution ought to be seen as a way of understanding God's mechanism of creation rather than a threat to their understanding of God as creator.

I think that it's worthwhile discussing whether or not Millers arguments against each of these 3 challenges are sufficient? Also, if we think he doesn't sufficiently address these issues, what's missing? Since this has been an issue in Kansas over the years, do these alternative ideas have enough scientific merit to be taught alongside evolution in science classes?