Only A Theory - Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

Only a Theory
Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
By Kenneth R. Miller


I picked up this book in the bargain section of McNally Robinson a few weeks ago, primarily because I had gift certificate, and I wanted to spend it on something I wouldn't normally buy. As a creative writer and reader, science non-fiction is not my usual thing, but I was attracted by the title and cover, and the debate over evolution falls firmly into political issues I am perpetually irritated and fascinated by. (Although, as I was to discover, according to Miller anyway, evolution is far from a political issue.) I was so glad I did pick up this book, as it really laid out a lot of the issues for me in a way that was (mostly) in layman's terms. So should I ever come across an anti-Darwin person who wants to argue, I will be at least partly armed with some understanding of the points.

Seems unlikely, I know, but as I discovered reading this book, the concept behind ID (Intelligent Design) is not as foriegn as one might think, even to the most rational, agnostic, (or atheist leaning) non-practicing Jew among us (ahem, three guesses as to who I am talking about.) But seriously, I have no doubts about evolution whatsoever, but I realized, reading this book, that despite my total lack of interest in a higher power, I have left room in my imagination for "Intelligent Design". That is not to say I think it should be taught in schools, regarded as an alternative to evolution, or even a legitimate scientific theory (and after reading this book, I definitely don't think so) but I realize that there has always been that you-never-know part of me, that left the option open, in a "well then where did the big bang come from?" kind of way.

And that is what is most compelling about this book. It is a given (to me) that teaching intelligent design is a religious foot in the door and should not be tolerated. And it is a given to me that we are descended from the same primordial goo as the insects and the kitties, and certainly the apes, and I have no qualms about that (more on this later.) But reading this book I was forced to examine my own holdout ideas that maybe somewhere off in the distance, someone, something has a plan for all of this.

But Kenneth R. Miller says no, and his arguments are sound. He dissects the main arguments of ID like "irreducible complexity" to the likelihood of like forming the way it did, and I won't get into the specifics now, but suffice to say, he makes it clear. There was no designer, at any point, in all of evolution. In essence, if there was, "he" was a wasteful, inconsistent, slow architect prone to huge mistakes. Its a major over simplification of his arguments, but it is what I found most compelling.

Miller starts with a specific comparison between ID and evolution but quickly expands the scope of the book to get at the heart of the ID movement, and America's seeming rejection of evolution, and that comes down to two things; reticence to admit that we as humans are "nothing more than animals", and the terrifying possibility that we are all here, not as part of a plan, but by virtue of sheer dumb luck.

As to the first point, the question of "Are we nothing more than hairless apes?" has never bothered me much. I recognize the author is trying to reach out to other readers who struggle with this idea, but for me this is no concern. Anyone who knows animals knows they are our betters in many ways, and it seems so irrational to worry that we emerged from them. Does that change our ability to reason, to create art? Doe it make US the same as THEM? In some ways, but it doesn't diminish what is different about us. If anything, it just makes animals and our similarities that much more fascinating, and should relieve some of the confusion we feel as humans about our instincts and some of our baser desires.

As to the second point, that I can relate to a bit more, and might account for some of my deeper, buried ID beliefs. Not only is the idea of "random evolution" scary, in that it just as likely might not have happened, but as he says in the book,

"...furthermore, the idea that there is a link between the element of chance at the core of evolution and a host of bad consequences for society."

In other words, if we are just animals, why bother with the laws and rules and niceties of society? Miller has a lot to say on this, and on the definition of "random" and the universe having a "plan" in itself, a self-perpetuating growth to which we were the ultimate conclusion. Its a nice thought, and might be true. But for me, the question of "What are we doing here?" is a compelling one, but not compelling enough for me to turn my back on science for a concept like ID just because it makes me feel better.

What is scary to me, is not what it means for us a species if evolution is true (all that existential crisis shit it so 17th century), but what it means for our species if we deny science because its a little scary, and embrace a concept like ID, a non-reality based theory. As Miller says, accepting ID as a valid theory is accepting a change to the fundamental rules of science, and that can have disastrous consequences.

"What would a science of the future look like if we considered 'non naturalistic' causes to be legitimate scientific explanations? At a stroke they would be accepted in every branch of science. That earthquake devastating part of the third world might have been caused by shifting tectonic plates, but it could also be punishment for the sinfullness of those now suffering in the rubble. Why bother to construct an exhaustive molecular search through simian virus genomes to find the source of HIV when clear-thinking ID scholars have concluded that it was sent as a divine warning against deviant lifestyles? In fact, even the rainbow might just be a phenomenon presented to us by a 'whimsical' designer, according to ID theorist William Dembski. Why worry about the physics of light itself when the mystery of the rainbow can be solved by easy reference to the personality of the creator?"

It might seem far fetched, but Miller explains how that slip down the theism-as-science slope is right around the corner when ID starts to grip the minds of Americans.

The book loses a tiny bit of credibly for me near the end, when Miller draws the comparison between evolution and capitalism, and how the 20th century has proved both of them the superior theory (and when he speaks of capitalism, he refers to 100% free market.)

"At the beginning of the 21st century evolution has won the scientific argument just as surely as capitalism has won the economic one."

Well, not exactly. Not only does this statement (almost hilariously) date the book to having been published pre-2008, but it is one of the weakest arguments for me. Also, a self-identified Christian, Miller speaks a lot about how believing in God does not preclude a strong belief in science or a rejection of ID, but he never explains then, what is God's role in our universe, if not the creator?

All in all, this turned into a fascinating read, although I will admit it took me about three times longer to read than the average book. (And a blog that, I imagine, will be three times longer than my average blog) But in the end it not only 'armed' me with valuable information for the things I already believed, it made me face and question some things I did not even realize I believed.

I highly recommend this book.

Available in hard copy and paperback at McNally Robinson or on Amazon.com

NEXT UP: Woman's World: A Novel, by Graham Rawle