BOOK REVIEW

Wouldn’t believing in a fantasy be nicer?: a review of Only a Theory.

Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, by Kenneth R. Miller

Rudolf A. Raff

Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Correspondence (email: raffr@indiana.edu)

Only a Theory. Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

Kenneth R. Miller, 2008, Viking, New York. 256 pp.ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3.

Suppose that an evolutionary biologist wrote a book sug-

gesting that we actually consider and critically analyze the

hypothesis of intelligent design seriously? Suppose we asked if

ID really has ideas that present openings to a new kind of

science? Here is a book by Ken Miller, a professor of biology

at Brown University, doing just that. Miller has spent years in

the battle to assure good science teaching, especially of evo-

lutionary biology, in American public schools. He served as a

crucial expert witness on evolution for the plaintiffs in the

Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design trial in 2005. The title

of his book, ‘‘Only a Theory,’’ comes from a dismissive com-

ment on evolution made by an attendee of the trial and

overheard by Miller.

‘‘Only a Theory’’ asks us to imagine the fantastic sugges-

tion that cells might contain a message in their deepest struc-

ture and function that there is an architect, a designer of living

things. This is the world-transforming promise made by ID.

According to ID, the imprints of the architect’s design are to

be found in the basic machinery of life. Thus, the crucial

sciences for understanding our origins are no longer compar-

ative anatomy or paleontology, but have become cell biology

and biochemistry. ID proponents claim that they have pro-

vided a revolutionary outlook on the nature of the scientific

enterprise. Revolutionary idea perhaps, but we need a clear

picture of what this supposedly new science proposes. Alas, as

Miller elegantly shows, the scientific case made by IDers is not

only vague, but significantly is not based on any research

done by them. ID has been as slippery to pin down as a

traveling creationist debater. Miller summarizes as much as is

possible of what ID contains. Here is how I extract it:

1. ID accepts a 4.6 billion-year-old solar system andEarth.

2. ID accepts fossils as a record of past life extending backthree plus billion years.

3. ID accepts microevolution, but denies it can accountfor ‘‘macroevolution’’ or origins of novel features.

4. ID posits that complex functional entities such as cellsare analogs of human-designed machines. These dem-onstrate ‘‘specified complexity,’’ and thus require anintelligent designer in nature.

5. ID posits that molecular, cellular, and organ systemsexhibit ‘‘irreducible complexity,’’ thus requiring cre-ation by a designer as a complete entity.

6. ID rejects naturalism as principle of science, and de-mands an acceptance of supernatural cause to be al-lowed as an explanation of natural events.

Miller addresses the two positive and testable propositions

put forward by ID, specified complexity and irreducible com-

plexity. The ID arguments for specified complexity claim that

evolution cannot produce new information. ‘‘Only a Theory’’

cites computer simulations that show this claim to be incor-

rect. Perhaps more concretely for biologists, Miller also de-

scribes fascinating studies in which Darwinian selection has

been observed to give rise in bacteria to novel enzymes that

digest nonnatural substances such as nylon in a matter of a

few years. Gene duplication, mutation, and selection com-

bined to produce other molecular novelties, such the anti-

freeze protein of some Antarctic fish. The second idea,

irreducible complexity, has been made famous through its

snappy icon, the mousetrap. It’s a machine. Take a piece off,

EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 11:1, 130–131 (2009)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00311.x

& 2009 The Author(s)

Journal compilation & 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

130

it doesn’t catch mice. Ergo, designed not evolved. ID makes

the same claim for complex biomolecules, and has identified

examples. Miller goes on to again demolish these by now

stock ID icons, the bacterial flagellar motor, and blood co-

agulation. Miller in addition, makes clear the relationship of

ID to creationism, a relationship denied by ID adherents.

That is, if the existence of complex biological entities (be they

genes, cells, or horses) requires a designer, the designer can’t

stop there. The designer also must execute the design, an act

of creation. A series of macroevolutionary changes then rep-

resents the creation of each new entity all through geological

history. It may not be sudden literal biblical creationism, but

ID is creationism all the same. The last element, the rejection

by ID of methodological naturalism in science too is

effectively quashed in ‘‘Just a Theory’’Fno unequivocal ev-

idence exists for a grand design. We live in a natural

universe operating by natural rules in principle discoverable

by science.

Miller argues well against the concept on evidence from

biochemistry and molecular evolution. However, the book

misses an opportunity to make a strong evo-devo case against

irreducible complexity. The discussion of evo-devo wastes

effort on the lame ID discussions of Haeckel’s doctored

drawings. Nor will the sight of a diagram of shared Hox genes

in vertebrate embryos make ID believers drop Genesis into

the scientific discard box. Irreducible complexity is not only

evolutionarily static; it is developmentally static as well. All

cellular and organismal structures have an ontogeny. All that

irreducibly complex structure arises from no obvious struc-

ture. Think of the incredible plumbing choice that has to be

made in formation of the urogenital system in mammalian

males versus females. True, there are genetic and molecular

systems at play, but the structure has to form de novo. There

is no homunculus in the egg. Further, irreducibly complex

molecular entities also have ontogenies. These assemblies can

involve molecular scaffolding and progressive substitution of

molecular players, such as in the switch from fetal to adult

hemoglobin.

Miller effectively confronts some of the issues that trouble

those who don’t like evolution, because they believe it makes

us ‘‘just animals,’’ and removes any ethical foundation, or

meaning to our lives. His discussions of mutation, random-

ness, contingency, and convergence are important because

they bear on the yearning for purpose as well as science. But if

there is a disappointing section to the book, it is the discussion

of why Americans, who certainly appreciate its practical ap-

plications, deny whole chunks of science. The cultural rela-

tivism he discusses is a destructive way to view science. It

might well allow a lazy public faced with arguments about

evolution and creationism to go along with a ‘‘well, neither

can be proven, so we might as well teach the controversy’’

way to avoid contention in schools. However, it is not a con-

vincing argument as the cause of creationist beliefs among

people who are likely to hold an absolute religious faith.

Miller is certainly correct in asking if it is not the case that

‘‘. . . ID’s ultimate target is not to ‘correct’ the mistakes of

evolution but to destroy scientific rationalism itself?’’

‘‘Only a Theory’’ is a lively and knowledgeable addition to

the literature debunking the continuing efforts of creationists

to subvert the honest teaching of science. The science of the

book is informed, and Miller’s strategy of looking seriously at

the scientific pretences of ID serves as a powerful scaffold on

which to hang ID with its own designer rope. Not to worry

thoughFcreationism has staying power. The Louisiana ‘‘Sci-

ence Education Act’’ newly signed into law in 2008, allows

teachers to introduce ‘‘supplemental textbooks and other in-

structional materials’’ specifically about evolution, the origins

of life, global warming, and human cloning into their classes.

New tactics bring new life to creationist follies, but that is yet

another story.

Book review 131Raff