With the emergence of Darwinism’s book, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, several individuals speculated that evolution was the ultimate antagonist toward the fundamental belief of the origin of creation: God. However, Kenneth Miller, a cellular biologist, rejects the separation of the two concepts in his book, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by arguing that accepting one belief does not imply refuting the other but instead that both can coincide to propel the reality behind human’s natural existence. Throughout Genesis chapter two and three, Miller’s belief that “we were given our unique imaginative powers not only to find God, but also to discover as much of His universe
…show more content…
For example, Miller admits that “evolution disposed of the last remaining mystery-- the source of life itself”, and therefore may have implied that “there was no longer any room left for religion in the life of the mind” (15). However, Miller introduces the main conceptual error in which those who seek religion “have based their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient” (266). Instead, Miller argues that God “acts in the world today in concert with natural laws and works His will in the present through the contingent events of human and natural history” (266). Inferring that natural law and science do not diminish God’s existence, Miller argues that “[t]o people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete” in that “God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve” (268). As a result, Miller argues that religion and science do not have to be contrasting views that refute each other; instead, they can function as the basis to create a well-rounded sound understanding of the evolving world around one. Undeniably, Miller emphasizes that evolution exists because God desired creation to be “not a creaky little machine requiring constant and visible attention, but a true, genuine, independent world in which our existence is the product of …show more content…
While some argue that “if evolution is both the instrument of God and also the source of murder and rape, then the God of evolution must be a pretty nasty fellow”, Miller refutes that in order to love God devotedly and voluntarily, he must also be “perfectly willing to allow us to make our own mistakes, commit our own sins, make war on ourselves, and ravage the planet that is our home” (269). The ability to choose this fate for ourselves is depicted where God gives mankind “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth”, along with the responsibility of how to use it (Anselm Academic Study Bible, Gen. 2.28). Therefore, by placing “the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and then “settling [man] in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it”, God is emphasizing that mankind has the choice to be close to God in the face of temptation and sin (Gen. 2.9-15). After all, if mankind did not have such freedom, or did not evolve, then God’s creations would not have the option to truly love and devote themselves to God as they can now. Inevitably, “[t]he ability to do good means nothing without the freedom to do evil” (Miller,
For example, Miller admits that “evolution disposed of the last remaining mystery-- the source of life itself”, and therefore may have implied that “there was no longer any room left for religion in the life of the mind” (15). However, Miller introduces the main conceptual error in which those who seek religion “have based their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient” (266). Instead, Miller argues that God “acts in the world today in concert with natural laws and works His will in the present through the contingent events of human and natural history” (266). Inferring that natural law and science do not diminish God’s existence, Miller argues that “[t]o people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete” in that “God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve” (268). As a result, Miller argues that religion and science do not have to be contrasting views that refute each other; instead, they can function as the basis to create a well-rounded sound understanding of the evolving world around one. Undeniably, Miller emphasizes that evolution exists because God desired creation to be “not a creaky little machine requiring constant and visible attention, but a true, genuine, independent world in which our existence is the product of …show more content…
While some argue that “if evolution is both the instrument of God and also the source of murder and rape, then the God of evolution must be a pretty nasty fellow”, Miller refutes that in order to love God devotedly and voluntarily, he must also be “perfectly willing to allow us to make our own mistakes, commit our own sins, make war on ourselves, and ravage the planet that is our home” (269). The ability to choose this fate for ourselves is depicted where God gives mankind “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth”, along with the responsibility of how to use it (Anselm Academic Study Bible, Gen. 2.28). Therefore, by placing “the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and then “settling [man] in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it”, God is emphasizing that mankind has the choice to be close to God in the face of temptation and sin (Gen. 2.9-15). After all, if mankind did not have such freedom, or did not evolve, then God’s creations would not have the option to truly love and devote themselves to God as they can now. Inevitably, “[t]he ability to do good means nothing without the freedom to do evil” (Miller,