Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII
In chapter eight, titled "The Road Back Home," Miller discusses some of the implications of the findings of science on a religious person's faith in God. Or, to put it another way, he goes into a theological discussion of what kind of God can be seen as compatible with the findings of modern science. In short, his answer is that the findings of modern science do not at all contradict the traditional God of the western monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This chapter seems to be a catch-all chapter for discussing some of the religious objections to evolution.
First, he lays out three foundational beliefs about God shared by all three western monotheistic religions. These are: 1) the primacy of God in the universe, 2) we exist as the direct result of God's will, and 3) God has revealed himself to us.
Miller then walks the reader through some of the findings of modern science to demonstrate that science does not contradict these core beliefs of theists. He begins with the scientific findings that the universe did in fact have a beginning. If the universe had no beginning, then perhaps the view of God as creator would become untenable. Yet, the universe did have a beginning in the so-called big bang, and science has discovered when it was.
Next, Miller discusses what has been called the anthropic principle. In short, the anthropic principle states that the universe, and specifically a few constants (constant physical forces) in the universe: gravity, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism, for example, make possible the development of life. If any one of these constants were just slightly higher or lower, then life would not be possible. Miller, quoting Stephen Hawking, writes: "'If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size.' Conversely, if g were smaller, the dust from the big bang would just have continued to expand, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us" (227-228).
Miller notes that these constants by no means prove the existence of God, they also speak to how wonderfully hospitable this universe is to life, such that even strong atheists, such as Daniel Dennet note the danger of the anthropic principle. Miller quotes Dennet as follows:
Believers in any of the proposed strong versions of the Anthropic Principle think they can deduce something wonderful and surprising from the fact the we conscious observers are here--for instance, that in some sense the universe exists for us, or that perhaps we exist so that the universe as a whole can exist, ore even that God created the universe the way He did so that we would be possible (228).The next issue that Miller tackles is the notion of luck or chance. Many religionists object to evolution on the ground that, they say, God would not have left creation to chance, as evolution holds. Yes, Miller concedes, evolution does rely on chance, especially in the appearance of mutations. Yet, for him, the existence of chance in no way nullifies the existence of God. Miller compares evolutionary chance to historical chance. If chance can play a part in history, determining the rise and fall of human empires and the like, then of course it can play a part in evolution. Neither discounts the existence of God. Moreover, without the element of chance, there can be no free will, no free creatures, and no true love of God.
Miller moves on to discussing the role of God in a self-sufficient universe as described by modern science. First of all, Miller does not discount miracles. He claims no philosophical worldview that would deny the possibility of miracles. That said, he says that natural phenomena have natural, scientific explanations. Miller also claims that God can be seen at work through natural, scientific phenomena. For example, he explains that the very existence of the universe cannot be explained through science alone. God, according to Miller is responsible for the existence of the universe.
In short sections, Miller refutes the idea that God would not have taken so long to get to his crowning achievement, humans; and the idea that evolution is too cruel to be the process by which humans were created. His refutation of the first is simply that God is patient and not bound by time as humans are. His answer to the second is twofold. First, cruelty is relative and nature can be seen as cruel, or beautiful. Second, the real surprise in life is not that nature can be cruel, but that something like altruism exists at all.
In the end, I found this the weakest chapter in the book so far. There are some great insights in this chapter, but as a whole, the organization was a little weak and slipshod. Some of Miller's generalizations about religion were not nuanced enough. In the end though, Miller does present plausible reasons why evolution need not be a threat to traditional belief in God.