hateful sample of victimological drivel,rnthe teutonophobic fixations of DanielrnGoldhagen in Hitler’s Willing Executionersrnor Cornwell’s collection of factoids. IfrnCornwell comes off slightly better, it isrnonly because he writes like an educatedrnEnglishman. Even among mendaciousrnscribblers, style should count for something.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor ofrnhumanities at Elizabethtown Collegernin Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, and thernauthor, most recently, of After Liberalism:rnMass Democracy in the ManagerialrnState (Princeton).rnShifting Groundrnby Harold O.J. BrownrnFinding Darwin’s God:rnA Scientist’s Search for CommonrnGround Between God and Evolutionrnby Kenneth R. MillerrnNew York: Cliff Street Books/HarperCollins;rn292 pp., $24.00rnKenneth Miller, a professor of biologyrnat Boston University, has producedrna beautifully written work. Hisrnbook is intended to refute every objectionrnto the more or less universally acceptedrndoctrine of evolution, to discredit its opponents,rnand to assert the compatibility ofrnstrict evolutionary doctrine with religion.rnEver since Darwin —and especiallyrnsince the rise of Protestant fundamentalismrnearly in this century—his opponentsrnhave launched attacks, some sophisticatedrnbut many of them heavy-handed, onrnthe doctrine of evolution. During the lastrnfew years, a fresh series of literary assaultsrnhas been made, including books by a legalrnscholar and a biochemist, as well asrnpolitical attacks, through the determinationrnof school boards in Kansas and Kentuckyrnthat the teaching of naturalisticrnevolution in their schools will no longerrnbe a requirement. In consequence, severalrnpromoters of evolutionary doctrine,rnStephen J. Gould of Harvard amongrnthem, have mounted counterattacks torndemonstrate that evolution (which forrnour purposes we shall call Darwinism, althoughrnevolutionary doctrine has subsequentlyrnprogressed far beyond CharlesrnDarwin’s views) is true, irrefutable, andrnindeed impossible for serious thinkers torndoubt; also, that religious people needrnhave no fear of it. Despite its title, whichrnmight suggest an inquiry into Darwin’srnreligious faith and theology. Miller’srnbook is devoted primarily to the defensernof the man’s ideas—or rather those of hisrnsuccessors —which. Miller argues, are,rnscientifically speaking, absolutely sound.rnStarting with an anecdote about an earlyrnchildhood encounter with what appearsrnto have been the Baltimore Catechismrnwith its straightforward and simple answerrnto the fimdamental question of humanrnexistence (“Who made me?” “Godrnmade me”). Miller goes on to describernhis early enthusiasm for the works of Milton,rnDante, and other great literature, byrncomparison with which he found thernOrigin of Species plodding. It was not until,rnas a teaching assistant in college biology,rnhe was confronted by a student wavingrna pamphlet entitied Evolution —thernLIE that he became drawn into the defensernof Darwinism.rnEarly in his book, Miller declares warrnon those evolutionists, such as G.C.rnWilliams, who asserts that science hasrnruled out the existence of God, or at leastrnof a benign one. “Is this indeed therncase?” Miller asks. “Is it time to replacernexisting religions with a scientifically responsible,rnattractively sentimental, ethicallyrndriven Darwinism—a Eirst Churchrnof Charles the Naturalist? Does evolutionrnreally nullify all world views that dependrnon the spiritual? . . . And does it rigorouslyrnexclude belief in God?” He isrndefinite in his response to his own question:rn”My answer, in each and every case,rnis a resounding no. I do not say this, asrnyou will see, because evolution is wrong.rnFar from it. The reason, as I hope tornshow, is because evolution is right.”rnMiller begins his defense of religionrnwith the effort to demonstrate that Darwinism,rnin its modern form, is scientificrntruth and can withstand all attacks; hernthen proceeds to deal with the attackers,rnchiefly Philip Johnson and Michael Behe.rnIn dealing with Johnson—the authorrnof two books challenging Darwinism,rnDarwin on Trial and Reason in the Balancern—MiWei points out “that the case hernand his legal associates bring against evolutionrnis not a scientific case at all, but arnlegal brief The goal of his brief is to raisernreasonable d o u b t . . . ” In order to prove arntheory wrong, is it necessary to offer a correctrnalternative? Johnson has such an alternativern—design by an intelligent CreatorrnGod—but his stated intention is notrnto prove the theory of biblical creationrnbut to expose the fallacies of evolution.rnJohnson, poor fellow, is not a scientist.rn”His claim of a punctuated equilibriumrnfalls apart under close scrutiny, and hisrnassertions that the fossil record does notrnsupport evolution is in error.” Millerrnhimself does not provide us with thatrnclose scrutiny. He merely asserts thatrnJohnson is wrong.rnMiller, a scientist rather than a lawyerrnor logician, argues, “If evolution is genuinelyrnwrong, then we should not be ablernto find any examples of evolutionaryrnchange anywhere in the fossil record”—rnnot noticing, apparently, that the existencernof some examples of macro-evolutionaryrnchange, even if they are acceptedrn(which not everyone is willing to do),rndoes not prove the general theory of evolution:rnnamely, that all present-day organismsrncame about through suchrnchange. And he does not acknowledgern—although his position rather presupposesrn—the fact that the doctrine ofrnevolution, even if it could explain howrnliving beings came into existence, cannotrndeal with the question of purpose, of FirstrnCause implying an intelligent Designerrneven more strongly, perhaps, than doesrnthe Cod of Genesis.rnMiller devotes slightly more time tornhis fellow biological scientist MichaelrnBehe, whose fundamental argument isrnthat intelligent design is not merely possiblernbut absolutely necessary. “Behe’s argument,rnas summarized in his 1996rnbook, Darwin’s Black Box, is that Darwinianrnevolution simply cannot accountrnfor the complexity of the living cell,” thatrnbiological life is made up of organs far toorncomplex to have developed naturally.rnAgainst Behe, a geneticist. Miller resortsrnto what is called the genetic fallacy in logic:rn”As I read Behe’s book I began to getrnthe impression that this seemingly newrnargument against natiiral selection had arnfamiliar r i n g . . . At least for a while, manyrnwould fail to recognize just how old thisrnargument really is.” Because, that is, thernargument against Darwin is old, we don’trnneed to listen. Here Miller overlooks thernfact that Darwin’s own theory must necessarilyrnbe older than arguments directedrnspecifically against it. Of course, Darwinismrnis being regularly updated andrnmodified—but without meeting the basicrnobjections to it, as both Johnson andrnBehe would argue.rnAmong Miller’s arguments against intelligentrndesign—and specifically againstrnMARCH 2000/29rnrnrn