Week 4 Friday Study Questions on Miller  (p. 1-164)

 

Each  member of  the  small groups should  briefly indicate what they found most striking in the reading; the group as a whole should ultimately formulate two question for full seminar. Please focus on the first half of the book even if you have read more than the assigned reading.

 

Q1. What does Miller seem to mean by “scientific materialism?”(p. 27) How does it fit into his argument? Compare or contrast it with Bernard’s use of “determinism.”

 

Q2. How does Miller deal with the claim that Darwinian evolution is “just a theory”?    (pp. 53-4) What is Miller’s distinction between fact and theory?

 

Q3. Does the diagram from the Origin of Species (p. 44) describe fact or theory? What makes more sense: “the atomic theory of matter” or “the atomic facts of matter”?—“the theory of a historical Jesus” or “the fact of a historical Jesus”? Is there a clear demarcation between these two concepts? Can something be both a fact and a theory? (You might consider the following definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.)

 

FACT: Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

THEORY: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

 

Q4. Consider the following statement that was posted on the front cover of biology textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Do you agree or disagree with the content of this statement?

 

Q5. In Chapter 3, Miller talks about issues surrounding the concept of what Stephen J. Gould called “deep time”—the view that the earth and creatures upon it have existed for a “vast” amount of time. How did this view emerged historically?  What do you see as the strongest argument in its favor?  What are the concerns of “young-earth creationsists” who propose a much more recent date for the creation?” Construct the strongest response (or argument) you could make to such a person.

 

Q6. In Chapter 4, Miller discusses the “punctuated equilbrium” account of evolution.  Discuss this concept in terms of the illustration on pp.89 and 113-114.  According to Miller, how did this account become part of the debate over evolution? 

 

Q7. What is Miller’s criticism of intelligent design as it is presented by Phillip Johnson? How does Miller think a scientist and a lawyer differ in their respective approaches to difficult issues?  What do you make of Miller’s claim that “[i]n science, there is an absolute, unchanging authority”?(p123)

 

Q8. In Chapter 5, Miller provides an extensive critique of Michael Behe’s discussion of  the “irreducible complexity” of biological systems. What is Miller’s criticism?

 

 Q9. Create a chart that summarizes the positions that Miller critiques in chapters 3-5. How are the positions similar and different from each other? What is the emotional appeal and motivating force of each position? What arguments does Miller present against each position?

 

Q10. Consider Dawkins statement that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (p. 14). Was it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist prior to Darwin? Why or why not? What exactly did Darwin change? What is your opinion of evolution after reading the first half of Miller’s book?