It is because religion seeks to restore some amount of hope for values that they reject evolution. It is not on scientific terms. It is only because it eliminates the opportunity to possess moral virtues and therefore becomes the enemy of evolution. In the section "A Dangerous Idea", Miller explains the importance of the debate and says. "at issue is nothing less that the independence of human thought and reason" (178). He further states that applying evolution to social activity will, as Edward Wilson says, doom the very idea of God (183). Miller describes what he sees as a "fabric of disbelief" among intellectuals (184). This academic arrogance results in a belief that there are no absolutes. He contends that this concept in the minds of the ordinary man would tear apart society. Miller says, "If evolution is capable of breaking the legal and moral ties between criminal behavior and the individual, the very foundations of our society are at risk" (189). Miller reinforces his belief in both science and religion by asking, "But what if both sides are wrong" (190).
Miller answers the question in chapter 7 by using physics to explain the validity of both evolution and God. He tells of the history of civilization as being highlighted by scientific discoveries, each one unmasking a God. ...Show more