Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Author, professor Kenneth Miller lectures about evolution at UMass

Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and a prominent science author, gave a lecture titled “The Evolution Wars: Why Do They Matter? Why Do They Continue?” to a crowded room in UMass’ Campus Center on Thursday. Although Miller’s lecture touched on numerous aspects of the evolution debate, his central message was that evolution and faith can coexist harmoniously and that the two are not mutually exclusive. He also said that to continue to take sides would only hamper science education in the United States.

Courtesy blogs.plos.org
Courtesy blogs.plos.org

“Science is compatible with faith, especially a kind of faith that accepts scientific reason as a divine gift,” said Miller, author of “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution.”

“I think that the best religious traditions do exactly that,” he said.

Miller used the 19th century Austrian scientist Gregor Mendel as an example of why he feels the two are not irreconcilable. Mendel was devoutly religious, but was also a brilliant scientist and is now considered a father of modern genetics, Miller said.

Furthermore, Miller thinks the intricacies and perfection of evolution are more flattering to a higher power than intentional design.

“I think it’s remarkable to think that you and I are bound into the fabric of life that pervades everywhere on this incredibly beautiful planet on which we happen to live,” he said.

Using former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum as an example, Miller said he feels those who do not believe in evolution sometimes believe the theory implies humans are “mistakes of nature” and devoid of moral compass. Miller thinks these attitudes are unfounded.

“What I’ve tried very hard to do is to take those concerns that people have about the theory of evolution as being degrading or demeaning or dehumanizing and try to say this isn’t true,” he said. “Evolutionary processes are creative…they’re driven by natural selection, which is as nonrandom a force as you can get.”

Miller does not believe intelligent design is a credible scientific theory. Rather, he holds that it is nothing more than a rather silly religiously-tinged doctrine. During the lecture, he discussed what he believed to be “weapons” of the intelligent design movement: “intentional distortion” of facts used to support the theory of evolution and “fear of the implications of evolution for people of faith.” Maneuvers like these, Miller believes, are creating a movement against science.

“I really am concerned about an anti-science tide in the United States,” he said. “There are certain people, certain political groups, who seem to feel that science is inherently left-wing. This is why the evolution wars matter – it’s Exhibit A in the portfolio of the anti-science movement in the United States.”

Because he feels science and politics are becoming increasingly intertwined, Miller said he finds himself talking about politics with his friends from the scientific community more than ever before.

“We feel that the political process has become, in some respects, so anti-scientific that we literally have to defend ourselves,” he said.

Miller said he does not believe mounting support for the intelligent design theory – which holds that the world could only have been created by an intelligent being – accounts exclusively for what he sees as America’s slippage in science education or for what he identifies as a rising anti-science sentiment in the country. He also pointed a finger at the declining quality of education.

“You don’t have to look very far to discover that American students are behind in math and science,” said Miller. “We’re really, really not doing a very good job of teaching or learning science, and it would be naïve to suspect that this resistance to science has nothing to do with poor science education in this country.”

This lack of focus on science education, according to Miller, comes in part from the scientific community’s dry reputation and lack of representation in mainstream culture. Miller believes the scientific community needs to take more vocal political action and improve its communication with the rest of society by making science more digestible for the average citizen.

“There almost is a culture within the scientific community that looks down on people who are good at popularizing science,” he said during a short question-and-answer session after the lecture.

During his lecture, Miller outlined several 20th century court cases surrounding evolution in learning environments. The rulings have given him hope for the future. Most of the court cases – including Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Miller was a participant – have ruled in favor of science.

“Don’t lose faith in democracy,” he said. “The American people, given a choice, are going to pick science every time.”

In addition to writing “Finding Darwin’s God,” Miller is perhaps best known for his appearances on the satiric pundit show The Colbert Report and the high school science textbook he co-authored with Joe Levin, “Biology.”

The lecture was presented and organized by UMass’ Interdisciplinary Seminar in the Humanities and Fine Arts (ISHA).

Michael Roberts can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (6)
More to Discover

Comments (6)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • A

    Anon111Apr 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    “Add no plausible mechanism, and you have no science at all.”

    I shouldn’t have to remind someone that has allegedly studied Evolution for “20 years” that the plausible mechanism of evolution that is defended by the scientific community is natural selection. Any standard textbook or popular science writing emphasizes the role of natural selection (and other genetic mechanisms) in speciation and “micro” evolution.

    Quentin, in your own words, how is Intelligent design science? Furthermore, what concrete, falsifiable, and testable evidence is there to support ID? What, specifically, don’t you agree with regarding evolution?

    Reply
  • L

    leebowmanApr 5, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    ID sits between a rock and a hard place, roughly centered between religion and hard science. While tied improperly to religion due to opportunistic ploys by some religionists, most denounce it. Either it demeans God (tinkering with genes over vast time), or it simply is contra to YEC beliefs. Even TEs like Ken have disdained and discredited the concept, but is Theistic Evolution really that much different? That said however, I have to admit that our foraging over the sparse droppings we have been able to glean from the data has resulted more in confusion and chaos, than of enlightenment.

    That aside, Ken is spot on in airing his concerns:

    “I really am concerned about an anti-science tide in the United States,” he said. “There are certain people, certain political groups, who seem to feel that science is inherently left-wing. This is why the evolution wars matter – it’s Exhibit A in the portfolio of the anti-science movement in the United States.”

    But we see it at all levels. Non-theists attacking TE’s as ‘accomodationalists’, TE’s knocking ID’sts as either stealthy religionists, or more lately as discreditors of Biblical accounts and of the Majesty and Sovereignty of God Himself, or as Dr. Miller put it, as adherents of “religiously tinged doctrine” .

    When the political barnacles are removed however, we can plainly see ID as a logical consideration, based on the outward signs of intelligent input to the evolutionary synthesis. Mouse traps aside, ID is plainly a necessary component (adjunct hypothesis) where IC and NEC (non-evolvable complexity) exists. Among the many overt evidences are muscle ligature placement, genome coding, and areas of NEC, where either co-dependent systems or symmetries are in place which are either too complex to be attributable to mutations, or offer no reproductive advantage. And these are areas for continued statistical verifications or falsifications of uncaused causality, rather than shoved under the lab bench.

    But genetically speaking, there are covert ones as well, and it is within these areas that science must dwell. ERVs, misplaced centromeres and chromosomal fusions support phylogenetic progressions and linked lineages, but the revised and emerging ID synthesis is perfectly comfortable with that. Genetic engineering on a higher plane, but only sporadically as needed, could easily account for radical transformations, and yes, by using ‘what’s there to work with.’

    But where teleology or any flavor diverges with the current NDE synthesis constitutes the great divide, and the one in which has become a melting pot for minds. And hey, at least at the level of scientific discernment, the legal system need s to back off. Even sans Kitz v Dover, we’d still face that issue. At least now, we have hopefully learned by our mistake(s).

    I side with Miller regarding the decline of science (and technology) in this country, and with Chris Mooney and Sheril Krishenbaum as well, who lamented, “ … we have far too many unhealthy disconnects between different types of talented, intellectually motivated leaders and thinkers. There are too few collaborations between scientists and journalists, screenwriters, politicians, and religious leaders.” [ref Unscientific America, Basic Books, 7/13/09] I feel that all would agree that these conflicts are one of the root causes of the declining interest in science in this country, and need to be seriously addressed.

    To conclude, there is no one camp that coopts all truisms. Just as a larger number of ID adherents have become more aligned with the data, I would ask that science do the same, by backing off of its high horse of deterministic (single cause fallacy) and reductionist views regarding biologic diversity. Working together instead of at war, we should see a unification science, technology, and the populous.

    Reply
  • Q

    Quentin PatchApr 5, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Marx’s fictional writing langushed in Paris until Darwin published his Origins whimsy.
    Then Das Kapital flew off the shelves too. Karl wrote and requested permission to dedicate a whole printing to honor Darwin’s supporting effort. He was a gifted at creative writing, but real science is more than the tall storytelling he passed off in his youth (see Desmond & Moore bio.) There is no such thing as say-so science.
    I’ve studied efoolusionism for over 20 years and found it’s all atheist b. s. (bad science.) But then chief advantage to espousing atheism is lying your head off without compunction.
    Evillusion is simple atheist rant in a cheap white labcoat. It begins and ends with say-so, creative writing and artists’ renderings of half-and-half critters transmuting from cow to whale, whatever you like. Like Disney cartoon features, it’s nothing without the artwork, because they have no real world examples to show. Add no plausible mechanism, and you have no science at all.

    They depend on name calling and ridicule just as here. Then they threaten with lawsuits from the ACLU. I will let the thought Nazis answer what part of science demands censorship for survival. I’m a free-for-all, law of the jungle type when it comes to ideas. If your stinkin’ thinkin’ is sinkin’, so be it. You must ultimately surrender to the truth.

    Reply
  • A

    Anon111Apr 4, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Quentin, have you read an evolution text or enrolled in a course about evolution offered by the biology department? It is apparent to me that the way you wish others to perceive your position is one that appears confrontational, emotionally invested, and ignorant.
    Redefining “ID” as religious? When was it ever defined as science? Why must you establish a one-one correspondence with those who accept evolution and atheism? It simply isn’t true that one must be an atheist if one accepts evolution.

    Reply
  • J

    JerryApr 4, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Oh dear Quentin. Where to start. Even in the unlikely event that Darwin’s theory is usurped by one better supported by the evidence, it does not therefore follow that God exists. Unless the new theory contains actual testable evidence for the existence of God and his role in creation, I’ll still be an atheist and not the least bit threatened by it.

    There is no need to redefine ID as religious. With it’s total lack of testable evidence, it defines itself as conjecture rather than hypothesis.

    As for your references to “totalitarian socialism” and “communists”, well, you’ve clearly lost the plot. As Thomas Paine once said – “To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”

    Reply
  • Q

    Quentin PatchApr 4, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Evillusionism meant nothing to Gregor Mendel, but vice -versa. Challenges to Darwin’s creative fiction threatens atheism the central pillar of totalitarian socialism. Intelligent design questions are devastating to the science veneer over Darwinian fiction. Censorship, redefining ID as religious, is all the communists can cling to.

    Reply