Kenneth Millers Ideas - Essay Example

Religion and Science Religion and science have widely been applied by believers and intellectuals respectively, to help in the conceptualization of facts and events. An important point to note is that, religion derives the understanding of facts and events from the mere idea of belief and faith. However, science focuses on understanding facts and events by through conducting empirical and pragmatic experiments. There has been a lot of contradiction between religion and science, believers and intellectuals separately claim their own understanding and explanations of events and facts to be true. However, in the midst of all those controversies, there are individuals who try to establish a compromise between religion and science. This paper will include the explanation of two quotes, in light of Kenneth Miller’s ideas and thereafter my critical comments regarding the quotes. 1. “Such so-called creation science, thoroughly analyzed, corrupts both science and religion and it deserves a place in the intellectual wastebasket.” Miller, God the Charlatan. The first quote to be explained will come from the third chapter of Millers’ book Finding Darwinian’s God, known as ‘God the Charlatan’ (Miller 57). Miller, as a Roman Catholic and as a Biologist, tries to bring a compromise between religion and science. In the third chapter, there is a statement “…creation science …corrupts...science and religion…deserves…intellectual wastebasket, (Miller 67). Here, Miller argues against creation science, since it is limited on the idea that the universe in its entirety as a creation of God, cannot borrow other theories that in its explanation, and most importantly the evolution theory. Miller does not choose sides when it comes to understanding the universe in terms of religion and science. In the statement, he proves that it is not pragmatic or realistic to apply creation science as the ultimate explanation of events taking place on earth. Miller purports that, creation scientists, mislead in terms of applying the version of religious creation to help in understanding the universe. From the statement, Miller further points out that creation scientist entangle the chances of understanding the universe through both science and religion. As a pragmatist, who understands and appreciates religion and science, Miller, affirms on the idea of kicking creation science into wastebaskets. Miller is lead to that idea to the fact that creation scientists embrace God only through disowning science (Miller 80). Miller is a pragmatic individual, has embedded in him religion and science. He understands that understanding the universe, cannot be based on only religion as creation scientist try to claim (Miller 60). When factoring in on the question, from a creation scientist’s perspective, it is clear that they are actually missing a point or two on understanding the universe scientifically. Miller is right when he disowns the position of the creation scientists. I accordingly agree with Miller when he asserts that creation scientist misunderstand the connection between human existence, religion and science (Miller 63). In religious books, which are of different kinds of religions, there are explanations for the universe existence’s, which are decisively related to science. Creation scientists, disapprove the idea of accounting the origin of life through naturalistic process, and most importantly through evolutionary theory. Although, we can agree with creation scientist that evolution theory is not the decisive explanation of human existence, we can also disagree with them that religion is not the only explanation of human existence too (Miller 63). 2. “Why did this magician (the god of the intelligent design believers), in order to produced the contemporary world, find it necessary to create and destroy creatures, habitats, and ecosystems millions of time over?” Miller, God the magician. The second quote to be explained from Kenneth Miller’s Book Finding Darwinian God, is from the fourth chapter, headed God the Magician. Miller asks, “…why is this magician…god of intelligent design believers...destroy creatures…habitats…ecosystems” (Miller 92). In the above statement, Miller seeks to put across a question to the advocators of intelligence design, while at the same time disapproving their sentiments. Individuals, who are advocators of intelligence design, purport that God is the supreme designer of all events and circumstances taking place on the universe (Miller 93). From the quote, Miller points the weakness present in intelligence design in terms of understanding the universe. Intelligence design, as Miller explains is a modernized form of creation science, which has the objective of applying twisted religion in the exemplification of human existence. Miller is not frugal when selecting the word to describe the designer referred in intelligence design; he uses the word magician (Miller 99). It is also evident in the statement that Miller disapproves the sentiment of an intelligent designer, who creates things perfectly then afterwards they become old, get destroyed or disintegrate. He has the opinion that an intelligent designer would not sit back and let his creation go to ruin in terms of disintegrating or getting destroyed (Miller 101). The decisive argument put across by Miller is that contrary to an intelligent designer, in science a pragmatist scientist will thrive to develop rational sentiments to help in the exemplification of universal truth (Miller 126). Intelligent designers, in their own fashion, try to disapprove scientific explanation regarding the existence of the universe. I disapprove the idea of intelligent designers, taking scientific understanding, and in the process reformulate it with the objective of entwining it to suit their own explanations (Miller 81). Miller is right when he expresses the opinion that intelligent designers, base their understanding on magic (Miller 99). It is critical to note that intelligent designers also fall short of making their argument correct due to the fact that an intelligent designer, who creates nifty things, will not sit back and see them get ruined (Miller 100). It is in my view, same as Miller’s view that intelligent design is a movement established to frustrate scientific developments developed from the theory of evolution (Miller 82). Intelligence design can be acceptable if they embrace the notion of living things going through various developmental processes that are independent of God’s direct creation (Miller 128). Conclusion Kenneth Miller is considered as one of the most pragmatic and realistic individuals in terms of principles. His prowess comes from the fact that religiously he is a catholic, and scientifically he is a biologist. He has focused on understanding the world in terms of applying religious belief and scientific experiments. He addresses the idea that religion or science alone cannot be used when conceptualizing the existence of the universe. Both religion and science are applicable when trying to understand the existence of the universe. Creation science and intelligent design have been put across to help in understanding the universe in the expense of science. In many occasion, individuals who advocate for creation science and intelligent design try to overwhelm Darwin’s evolution theory. Miller, in his book, categorically reasons out against creation science and intelligence design since they seem to point out the existence of the universe of God’s perspective only. Miller’s argument, against creation science and intelligence design, is as a result of their weakness in misunderstanding God and the universe. In fact, he expresses that creation scientists see God as a charlatan, while individuals who support intelligence design, view God as a magician. \ Works Cited Miller K. Finding Darwin’s God. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999. Print Read More