Evolution shows how science is compatible with faith, Kenneth R. Miller, biology professor at Brown University, said in a lecture titled "Is Evolution Only a Theory? America's Continuing Struggle with Darwin, God and Design," Thursday in the K-State Student Union Ballroom.

Miller's talk was the third and final lecture in the Darwin Celebrations series, sponsored by the Center for the Understanding of Origins. 2009 is the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of his monumental publication "On the Origin of Species."

"Miller is probably best known for promoting public understanding of science, especially evolution," said Srini Kambhampati, professor of insect genetics and evolution. "He has written extensively on the compatibility of evolution and faith."

Miller, a cellular biologist, said he was initially surprised at the large sales of his book "Finding Darwin's God," but it showed him that the public wants to hear the issues of evolution and faith discussed, even though it can be a polarizing issue.

"I don't have to tell anyone in Kansas that evolution is an issue that divides Americans," Miller said to a crowd that filled the West Ballroom in the K-State Student Union, referring to the publicity that Kansas has gotten about its varying positions on the issue in recent years.

While Miller said he had no doubt that proponents of intelligent design are sincere, he said there is no scientific justification for the proposed theory.

"There is no coherent set of scientific principles, or any principles at all, that underlies intelligent design," he said, adding that evolution is "science and not conjecture."

Miller said anti-evolution resources in the United States are everywhere and the proponents of intelligent design have two "weapons" they use to drive students away from evolution.

The first, he said, is an intentional distortion of the facts. Miller cited evidence against what he said was on oft-used argument against evolution: missing fossil records of transitional species.

"The notion that there are no transitional forms between us and our common ancestors is not scientifically tenable," he said.

Miller also touched on genetics and stated that "the evidence for human evolution is everywhere in the human genome."

The "fear of evolution itself," or the argument that evolution takes away all significance for humans because they become just a product of chance, is the second weapon, he said.

"I don't think we are a mistake of nature," Miller said. "There is a design to life and the design is the evolutionary process."

Miller said the way he regards evolution does not devalue humans' significance but that "the view of life we get from evolution is grand and magnificent."

Miller said that those who believe in a creator and those who don't can ultimately come to the same terms with evolution because evolution can either be seen as nature or God's method of creation, which is "ultimately why science is compatible with faith."

"A material science devoted to the study of nature need not be hostile to religious faith, nor must such faith be hostile to science," Miller said.

The audience showed appreciation for Miller's ability to break down the complicated debate between religion and science.

"I was very encouraged by what he had to say," said Ben Davis, senior in political science. "It's very helpful to people when they are exploring these issues trying to bring some type of reconciliation between faith and scientific fact, to see someone who is so credible about these things add weight to the discussion."

6 comments

lets all be reasonable

Wed Apr 15 2009 16:42

These comments are a perfect illustration of how polluted the debate about evolution is.
I would ask people that refute evolution how did Noah place an animal of every species on his boat?
People commonly think that he took two of every species as found in GEN 7:9, but he also took seven of each species as found in GEN 7:2. Now, this is a contradiction, but since the bible is inerrant, they are both right.
Moving on, it is not physically possible that every species was represented. This is due to Noah's inabilities, and not Gods, of course. So since then some of our modern species must have evolved from the limited number of species from the ark.
We shouldn't be letting people who insist that reality conform to their beliefs set education policy. Consider your child being raised in another country, should they be taught a religion you don't agree with, being told it's science?
No, keep religion out of science! No one interferes with your right to teach religion at home, don't interfere with professionals setting science standards that will allow people to pursue biology, medicine, and other necessary causes.

Fred Flinstone

Mon Apr 13 2009 09:53

These comments are comical. Your pathetic effort to keep your head in the sand is, well... pathetic. Why don't you go draw some more pictures of humans coexisting with dinosaurs.

Your name

Mon Apr 13 2009 04:48

I do not advocate "teaching Genesis in biology class", but Collegian readers should be aware that Gerald Skoog's particular objection, "Genesis has a different account and order of creation than Genesis 2" has been rationally resolved and eliminated for a very very long time now.

So far, I am aware at least three scholarly reference books and nine Internet websites, (both Protestant and Catholic, both "young-earth" and "old-earth"), that all sufficiently explain the answer to Gerald Skoog's question. The short answer, quite honestly, is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are complementary, NOT contradictory.

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.
The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.
Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created." (Matt Slick, CARM website)

"It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting.
There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism." (Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament,1966, pp. 116-117).

Gerald Skoog's objection has been rationally answered for a long, long time. No need to buy into it.

Floyd A. Lee
solarskye@aol.com

Terry Trainor

Sat Apr 11 2009 12:44

Mr. Miller only pretends to 'break down' the debate, while doing nothing of the sort. All he does is continue the distorted dichotomy that Naturalists are scientific, while creationists are not. As long as the Old Earth Evolutionists continue to attack in this completely refuted argument, they will continue to lose every debate they decide to take part in. Stating that 'evolution is science, not conjecture' while intelligent design is 'not scientific' is such an obvious falsehood that it becomes obvious why his writings are only popular with the atheistic scientists, and shunned by those of true faith.

Discuss this, and any Origins issues in a CIVIL manner at Talk About Origins:
www.tao.invisionzone.com

And he continues the old 'bait and switch', speaking of 'evolution' when he means common descent, and speaking of 'evolution' when he means simply change over time. The latter is an absolutely established fact, while the former is

Your name

Sat Apr 11 2009 12:23

Genesis has a different account and order of creation than Genesis 2. For example, Adam is created 1st in Genesis 2 whereas humans are created last in Genesis 1. Which order of creation do "literalists" want emphasized in biology classes? How does a "Factual" Genesis seminar deal with this and other discrepancies.

Gerald Skoog

Herman Cummings

Fri Apr 10 2009 16:52

Absolutely no form of evolution is compatible with Genesis. Yes, there is a 600+ million year record of escalating death, but the correct literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis told mankind about the geologic history of Earth more than 3,000 years before secular science discovered it. Both creationism and theology have failed to do their homework, and the truth of Genesis is not being represented. Unfortunately, the news media has practiced censorship in ignoring the world’s leading expert on Genesis, keeping the public in the dark about the available truth of scripture.

There are no creation accounts in Genesis. Creationism is not the opposing view of evolution. Biblical Creation is the opposing view of “the Big Bang” theory. The Observations of Moses (Gen 1:1 – 2:3) is the opposing view of evolution. Therefore there is no ‘creation/evolution’ contest. There are Factual Genesis seminars available to educate the public if institutions are willing the host them.

Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808-1745

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out