Title Author Date

Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller Moritz , Al Apr 30, 2006

I did read both Miller's book and Rossow's review, and I have to agree with Pehnec that it was Miller's intent to establish that Darwinian evolution is thoroughly compatible with faith in God (which is a non-controversial thesis, as Rossow points out), yet that it was not at all his intent to try to establish some kind of "scientific evidence" for God's existence. In this sense, Rossow's review is based on a substantial misunderstanding, one which I would not have thought possible until I read the review. I do not see how Rossow supposedly is able to infer from the cited passages from page 17 of Miller's book that the author wants to establish evidence for God from evolution. However, unlike Pehnec, I do not think that Rossow's review is entirely without merit, since it raises some interesting and well-researched points and, misunderstanding aside, tries to be fair in an admirable way. I certainly cannot see it as a "strawman attack".

The length of the "yin part" (as Rossow calls it) of Miller's book is due to the fact that it not only expounds on the compatibility of Darwinian evolution with faith, but also on the reasons why it enriches faith and elevates the concept of God. I think Miller overall does an admirable job in showing this, even though I have some philosophical disagreements with him. As I see it, the "yin part" is entirely written by Miller from a believer for other believers, without the intent to "convince" skeptics. If Rossow misunderstands it as having such an intent, it necessarily appears weak from his perspective, but this is not Miller's fault. About the strengths of the "yang part" of the book of course there is little disagreement.

Related Articles: Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller

Title Author Date

Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller Rossow, Amiel Apr 30, 2006

I appreciate Al Moritz's comments, particularly his kind words about my being fair, as well as his support of those parts of my essay where I acclaim the "yang" part of Miller's book, but I don't think his critique of some other parts of my thesis is valid.
He wrote, regarding my interpretation of the "yin part" of Miller's book:
As I see it, the "yin part" is entirely written by Miller from a believer for other believers, without the intent to "convince" skeptics. If Rossow misunderstands it as having such an intent, it necessarily appears weak from his perspective, but this is not Miller's fault.

In this passage Moritz seems trying to attribute to me something that I never did -- guessing what Miller's "intent" was. I don't know what Miller's intent was and neither does Al Moritz, as none of us can read Miller's mind. I find Miller's arguments in favor of his faith, as they are formulated, weak and partially wrong, regardless of whether Miller wanted only to share his thoughts with fellow believers (as Moritz suggests) or also wanted to convince skeptics (which is not an unreasonable assumption, given the force with which Miller offered his pro-faith arguments). I did not psychoanalyze Miller's intent.
Perhaps Moritz did not notice the following sentence in my essay: "What we see, instead, is a display of an intelligent and insightful mind desperately trying to prove to himself that his religious faith has a rational foundation." Note the words "prove to himself."
Since Moritz seems to share the opinion that science is "enriching faith and elevating the concept of God", whatever this means, the sections of my essay dealing with Miller's "yin" part apparently created an emotional need to rebut that part of my thesis which is inimical to Moritz's beliefs.
For Moritz, who apparently shares Miller's views on science as "enriching faith," Miller's arguments favoring faith may sound convincing. For skeptics, however, neither Miller nor Moritz offers any notions which could make skeptics "convert" to Miller's pro-faith attitude. As to the assertion that the critic's opponent simply does not understand this or that point, this is a device which not only substitutes for arguments of substance, but also simultaneously self-flatters the critic, who supposedly understands the matter better than his opponent.

Best wishes.

Amiel Rossow

Related Articles: Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller