Each member
of the
small group should briefly
indicate what they found most striking in the reading; the group as a whole
should ultimately formulate a question for full seminar.
Q1. Evaluate the
statement of the National Academy of Sciences (p. 169). Do you agree with this
view? Do you think that most scientists agree with this view? Do you think that
most Creationists agree with this view?
Q2. Miller
discusses attempts to provide an evolutionary account of human language (p.
177 ff). How do Gould and Pinker’s positions differ? Miller says “as an experimental scientist, I
would carefully suggest that they know very little.” What does this quotation suggest about Miller’s concept of (good) science and about how some
evolutionary arguments are “scientifically” unjustified?
Q3. The last section in
chapter 6 attempts to diagnose the source of religious opposition to evolution
in terms of the fear that if God is dead then everything is permitted (to
paraphrase Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor).
What does Miller say about this position? Do you believe that “materialism” would undermine morality?
Q4. Miller uses the term “materialism” in a variety of
places in the book. He qualifies it in
a number of ways:
“scientific materialism” (p. 27, 194), “absolute materialism” (p. 188,
209, 288), “philosophical materialism”
(p. 186), “atheistic materialism (p. 185) and “proud materialism of
evolution.” What, if at any, are the
differences among these “types” of materialism? Does Miller embrace materialism
in any way?
Q5. In chapter 7, Miller examines deism and quantum
mechanics. According to Miller, what is deism and what are its flaws (pp.
196-7)? How does quantum mechanics undermine
deism? How does quantum mechanics allow a meaningful role for a
Judaic-Christian-Muslim God?
Q6. Miller distinguishes randomness from indeterminacy
(p. 210 ff) What is the distinction? He
uses indeterminacy to argue that “science’s ultimate goal, complete knowledge,
will never—indeed can never—be realized (p. 210)” He also seems to equate complete scientific understanding with
complete predictability (p. 213)
and to treat the science (at least of the “absolute materialist) as aimed
at control, predictability and ultimate
explanation? Do you think that
scientific prediction and scientific explanation are the same thing? Could you
have an “ultimate” scientific explanation without prediction? Must accounts that either directly or
indirectly appeal to quantum mechanical indeterminacy always be explanatorily
flawed?
Q7. Discuss the inconsistency that Miller finds in
creationists rejection of deism (p. 217).
What is his argument? Is it any good?
Q8. Miller argues that the existence of chance and
contingency in evolutionary history is compatible with the central tenets of
the three Western religions. Are you
convinced by it? Why or why not?
Q9. Miller defends the compatability of evolution and
religion. What are the strongest
considerations he advances , from your perspective in support of this
position? What are its biggest
liabilities? All things considered, do
you accept the compatibility of evolution and religious faith? If so, why?
If not, why not?
Q10. Miller concludes the book with a commitment to “Darwin’s God” (final page). How does Darwin’s God differ from that of those who criticize evolution? How does his differ from those he considers “absolute materialists”?