wild << Phil, I think Kenneth Miller may be attempting to present to his audience a somewhat distorted view of Original Sin within his book Finding Darwin’s God. And, biology does play an important role in how we determine what is good, right, and moral. >>
I probably agree with you on
Original Sin and Ken Miller. Here’s what I do: I go to the Catechism for definitions and explanations of Catholic doctrine, but I read folks like Ken Miller for the science, for the best rebuttals to creationist arguments, and on how to reconcile a theistic God (in general) with evolution. I do not go to the Catechism for modern science or scientific rebuttals to creationists, nor do I go to Ken Miller for Catholic doctrine (except for his opinion on such).
And I do not go to a book like
Case For A Creator for either sound science or Catholic doctrine (the writers are mainly evangelicals, except for Behe a Catholic, and Jonathan Wells a Moonie).
Bottom line:
macroevolution does not lead to atheism, God is compatible with evolution, the
modern Popes (at least Pius XII forward) do not have problems with evolution, and we should not recommend books that contain bogus science, that confuse science with faith, or that suggest “all evolutionists are atheists” : e.g.
“If Darwin’s right, we’re just sophisticated monkeys. The Bible is wrong. There is no God. And without God, there’s no right or wrong. We can just make up our morals as we go. The basis for all we believe is destroyed…people have to choose between science and faith, between evolution and the Bible. between the Ten Commandments and make-em-up-as-you-go ethics.” (Strobel, page 11)
“If Darwinism is true [Provine said] then there are five inescapable conclusions: [1] there’s no evidence for God, [2] there’s no life after death, [3] there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong, [4] there’s no ultimate meaning in life, [5] people don’t really have free will.” (Strobel, page 16)
“Not everyone, however, believes that Darwinian evolutionary theory and God are incompatible. There are some scientists and theologians who see no conflict between believing in the doctrines of Darwin and the doctrines of Christianity…[Christian de Duve, biologist Kenneth R. Miller, philosopher Michael Ruse, biologist Jean Pond are mentioned but…]…Personally, however, I couldn’t understand how the Darwinism I was taught left any meaningful role for God. I was told that the evolutionary process was by definition undirected – and to me, that automatically ruled out a supernatural deity who was pulling the strings behind the scene.” (Strobel, page 21,22)
So Strobel’s “strategy” throughout the book is to demonstrate that “GOD” is indeed the best
SCIENTIFIC explanation for such things as the “Cambrian Explosion,” the appearance of all the animals, and the human body. Not a good strategy in my opinion since these things are indeed explained well by “Darwinism” (i.e. biological evolution, paleontology, genetics, etc).
Better books on how God and evolution are compatible are by Ken Miller I already mentioned, plus several books by British philosopher/theologian Keith Ward:
God, Chance, and Necessity (responds to Dawkins and others)
Why There Almost Certainly Is A God (responds directly to Dawkins
The God Delusion)
Pascal’s Fire
The Big Questions in Science and Religion
And
Communion and Stewardship (2004) endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict
Strobel’s
The Case for Christ (1998 book and 2007 DVD) and
The Case for Faith (2000 book and 2008 DVD) are just fine in my opinion. They do not touch on science, but do deal with common objections to basic, historical, orthodox Christianity common to all Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox. And Peter Kreeft is interviewed.
Phil P
Now, back on track, here is an excerpt from Miller’s book that I was referring to: