Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is professor of biology in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University, in Providence, RI. His research delves into problems of structure and function in biological membranes using a variety of techniques associated with electron microscopy. One of his principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as that posed by intelligent design, and has publicly debated anti-evolutionists. He has written a series of high school and college textbooks with Joseph S. Levine, calledBiology, the most recent of which is known as the “Dragonfly” book (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002); he also wrote Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999). Miller was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium “Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation” at the 2004 NABT convention.
http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/

The questions regarding science, faith, and the relationship of God to us and reality as we perceive it can be quite daunting. However, over the years the writers that have been most helpful to me are as follows:

Rodney Holder
John Polkinghorne
Ernan McMullin
Graeme Finlay
Colin Russell
Alister McGrath
Robert White
John Bryant
Michael Poole
John Houghton
Denis Alexander
Roger Trigg
R J Berry
Ernest Lucas
Ian Barbour

I’m with Matt on this one. Let’s choose dialogue over politics and keep speaking up whenever rhetoric replaces discussion. Thanks to the net, the voices of ordinary people count more now than they once did. Let’s keep holding BOTH sides to higher standards until some leaders emerge who are able to carry on the deep dialogue between science and faith at the level and with the sophistication that it deserves.

– Philip

Thanks for your comments. I think it’s safe to say that many of us are coming to the table from diverse viewpoints. I’m greatly appreciative of people like John L, who consistently help me forge my own thoughts on a topic like this even though we might have wildly different perspectives on faith, etc.

I’ve tried to navigate the websites of Dawkins and PZ Meyers but as you noted, it can remind you of looking at the BBS message boards of a sports team. A lot of “rah rah” and “kick ass” with little substance. I also find many of the people who post there to have an appallingly inadequate scientific foundation (as a scientist studying the human genome myself). Science is in perpetual motion – people write books and papers that take a snapshot, but some people are under the impression that we’re at some magical stopping point where you declare science “the winner” (of what, I’m not sure). That said, I suppose there needs to be a virtual arena where people can throw their tantrums – whether creationists or disciples of Dawkins.

I stumbled upon Clayton’s stuff while reading a Marcus Borg book (can’t recall which one). There are lots of great books on this stuff and some incredibly smart people are contributing to the discussion – Stuart Kauffman, Philip Clayton, Marcus Borg, Paul Davies just to name a few. To really dig in and keep me up at night, I’ll watch a few episodes of Closer To Truth (http://www.closertotruth.com).

In the comments there was little attempt to actually engage. It was mostly name calling and reaffirming that people who disagree with them are “ignorant” and “idiots.”

I fail to see how this helps anyone understand anything. I am interested in how my faith and science interact, and what it means to apply rational thought and knowledge to my religion. I also am interested in what it means to apply faith to science.

I guess it pans out to be like politics for me. I’d love to see real, earnest debate about important things, and I get excited at the prospect of that. But it ends up being about partisanship, ego, and name calling.

I don’t see the same kind of name calling here, which makes me happy. I’m sure that sort of Christian (or simply religious) bad behavior exists, just not here.

Anyway, I appreciate this debate and am interested in what is going on with this. The original post and all of the comments have given me a lot to think about.

But imagine what progress it would be if theists and atheists were willing to look at the data together, valuing it and trying to understand it. And imagine what difference it would make it we could acknowledge where there are strongly supported theories, where the data leave room for intelligent discussion of alternatives, and where questions become more or less “purely philosophical.”

Like a ladder of questions, good science naturally raises questions at the boundaries of what we know. But imagine what it would look like if the discussants were able to recognize and acknowledge the levels of certainly and humility appropriate to each different topic they address.

Do you think Dan Dennett and I — two philosophers, one atheist and one theist — could have a discussion that met this (high) standard?

– Philip Clayton

Camile Puglia writing in Salon recently said this, “… I was recently flicking my car radio dial and heard an affected British voice tinkling out on NPR. I assumed it was some fussy, gossipy opera expert fresh from London. To my astonishment, it was Richard Dawkins, the thrice-married emperor of contemporary atheists. I had never heard him speak, so it was a revelation. On science, Dawkins was spot on—lively and nimble. But on religion, his voice went “Psycho” weird (yes, Alfred Hitchcock)—as if he was channeling some old woman with whom he was in love-hate combat. I have no idea what ancient private dramas bubble beneath the surface there. As an atheist who respects and studies religion, I believe it is fair to ask what drives obsessive denigrators of religion. Neither extreme rationalism nor elite cynicism are adequate substitutes for faith, which fulfills a basic human need—which is why religion will continue to thrive in our war-torn world.”

Physicist, astronomer, and atheist Marcelo Gleiser (Dartmouth) weighed in on the war between science and religion. He warns fellow scientists that they are becoming “as radical as the religious extremists, as inflexible and intolerant as the movements we seek to exterminate by our oh-so-crystal-clear-and-irresistibly-compelling rationalizations.”

Gleiser admits that science cannot adequately address essential human qualities such as hope, and love. He concludes, “It is futile and naive to simply dismiss the need people have for spirituality… either science will teach us humility and respect for life or we will exterminate this most precious cosmic jewel. I am optimistic that scientists will teach people these lessons, instead of simply trying to rob them of their faith and offering nothing in return.”

I think I posted something like this before on this site, but you have to remember that Dennett, Dawkins et al have all the answers. When they are pressed into areas beyond their knowledge base, they plead ignorance – e.g. “how can ‘what we see’ be considered ‘all there is’ given what little we know about quantum physics?” typical yields something like, “I’m not a physicist”. In the meantime, science is forging ahead generating some fascinating information that continues to turn dust-collecting theories on their head. The days of selfish genes and classical physics explaining all of biology are in the rearview for most scientists today. For some reason, Dennett and Dawkins are holding their ground, but they look more and more outdated as time goes on. When an alternative or more informed theory bounces too close to them, like the grumpy old neighbor, they will throw a fit yelling, “get your theory off my yard!”. Perhaps Dennett’s upcoming stint at the Sante Fe Institute will expand his worldview, but I’m not holding my breath.

I will of course, stay tuned and hope that you can convince Dennett to engage in some deeper questions, but people with the answers are just not that interested in the questions.