Darwin's God Discussion 3: Chapters 6-7

Having discussed the scientific shortcomings of the objections to evolutionary theory and the strength of evolutionary theory, Miller moves on now to discuss why he believes the notion that evolution and faith are incompatible is so persistent. He believes part of this is due to a belief on the part of people of faith that the Genesis account of creation must be literal history in order for their notion of God as creator to be correct. However, a second part of the equation that he discusses more thoroughly is the fact that many in the scientific community are vocally hostile (or patronizing) towards religion. He examines this hostility through the lens of scientific materialism, which is required for good science since it limits the subject matter of science to that which is observable, predictable, and able to be manipulated for experimental purposes. He states that critics of religion inappropriately extend this scientific assumption beyond it's reasonable limits to answer the question of whether or not God exists. He points out that this extension is problematic because God is supernatural and by definition outside the realm of scientific investigation.

Such a rigid materialism excludes forms of knowledge other than scientific from any serious consideration, more as a reflection of it's adherents own personal beliefs and biases, rather than out of scientific necessity. While this assumption serves us well when trying to understand the material world in which we live, religious believers also understand there to be an immaterial/supernatural realm that is innaccessible by means of scientific inquiry. He states that while we can learn about God's creation through science we can only understand God's personality through faith.

To find room for God's creative work in the predictible scientific processes at play as evolution occurs, Miller points out that while there are patterns in the behavior of matter that make it more or less predictable, there is an underlying indeterminacy in all matter at the atomic level what will always remain beyond our capacity to predict. He's careful to point out that this is different from the earlier principle of 'God in the gaps' since it does not represent a (potentially fillable) gap in our knowledge such as a 'missing link' in the evolutionary chain would, but rather it represents known indeterminacy underlying all of matter. Such random processes allow for an open ended and unpredictable future in which new creation can occur and free will can be expressed. It is in this unpredictability of matter that Miller sees God's creative genius at work. While such an understanding does not necessitate a belief in God, it also means that science can only lead us so far in our capacity to understand and predict, thus leaving room for God to work.

These chapters were pretty dense and philosophical, and hopefully I've captured the main ideas that Miller was trying to communicate with them. For discussion purposes, I think that the idea I find most compelling is that there are limits to what we can undestand through science, a person of faith ought to view these limits as providing room for God's creative work. While a certain conception of God isn't necessarily required by such an understanding, Miller is a Catholic and views God as a personal and loving God. Does this sort of conceptualization take us too far from God's nature as we understand it, or is it actually reaffirming of our faith?