Some Questions about Kenneth Miller's Arguments

I’ve been reading Kenneth Miller’s books and definitely respect many of his scientific insights, but have questions about some of the conclusions he makes regarding faith. He states that we will never be able to predetermine the movement and positions of certain particles, like photons, according to Quantum Physics. Likewise, he states that we will never be able to predetermine the outcome of an evolutionary process, like the outcome of a given mutation. There seems to be enough unpredictability in each of these given fields of science that we may be able to understand gods nature based on their erratic behaviors. But, isn’t it important that we “never say never” as a honest part of the scientific process? And, are we not just moving the goal post further back and allowing god a place in areas of science that are just now emerging? It seems like this is the dubious outcome of such assertions to me. This has some appeal to Miller because it ascribes to the notion that the unpredictability of life may point to a god who provides us with free will and not predeterminism. Furthermore, we don’t have to support the absolute materialism espoused by the likes of a Dennett or Dawkins. We can leave areas like culture, religion and language as undetermined and not based on the same meaningless mechanisms which drive biological evolution. Stephen Jay Gould might conclude that they are by-products of having a larger brain but not the direct result of natural selection--the whole spandrel effect. Otherwise, every sort of human behavior could be explained by the means of strict biochemical evolutionary processes and Miller detests that notion.

Miller also discounts creationism, in part, because it makes god out to be a magician that magically “poofs” things into existence—as if to say— the virgin birth, the feeding of five thousand, and walking on water are not examples of magic tricks. As a Christian, he accepts those events as fact but discounts the Adam and Eve story based on science. Where is the scientific merit for the aforementioned events? Evidently, we have to be able to tell the difference between what is to be taken literally and what is metaphorical. I’m still waiting for god’s copy of CliffsNotes for the Bible because I’m finding it very difficult to ascertain what is literal and what isn’t literal.

He also points to the anthropic principle and the big bang as possible indications that a deity is working mightily behind the scenes. He states that the Multiverse theory and the Big-Bang/Big-Crunch cycle theory are no more plausible than the theory of god being the great initiator. He quotes scientific juggernauts like Stephen Hawking as fellow proponents of the religious relevance of the Big-Bang. ‘“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications,’” says Hawking.

I’m no scientist by any stretch, but aren’t good theories those consistent with what is most parsimonious? Is a theory based on a natural explanation not always better than one based on the supernatural one? It would seem that the highly speculative Multiverse theory and Big-Bang/Big Crunch cycle theory are both more plausible than a supernatural explanation. It seems like another god of the gaps fallacy to me. Furthermore, doesn’t this throw the problem just one step further back in an infinite regress? After all, everything seems to have a cause, so who made god in the first place?