EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 11:1, 130–131 (2009) DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00311.x 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: [email protected]) Only a Theory. Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. traveling creationist debater. Millersummarizesasmuchasis KennethR.Miller,2008,Viking,NewYork.256pp. possible of what ID contains. Here is how I extract it: ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3. 1. ID accepts a 4.6 billion-year-old solar system and Earth. 2. ID accepts fossils as a record of past life extending back Suppose that an evolutionary biologist wrote a book sug- three plus billion years. gesting that we actually consider and critically analyze the 3. ID accepts microevolution, but denies it can account hypothesis of intelligent design seriously? Suppose we asked if for ‘‘macroevolution’’ or origins of novel features. ID really has ideas that present openings to a new kind of 4. ID posits that complex functional entities such as cells science? Here is a book by Ken Miller, a professor of biology are analogs of human-designed machines. These dem- at Brown University, doing just that. Miller has spent years in onstrate ‘‘specified complexity,’’ and thus require an the battle to assure good science teaching, especially of evo- intelligent designer in nature. lutionary biology, in American public schools. He served as a 5. ID posits that molecular, cellular, and organ systems crucial expert witness on evolution for the plaintiffs in the exhibit ‘‘irreducible complexity,’’ thus requiring cre- Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design trial in 2005. The title ation by a designer as a complete entity. of his book, ‘‘Only a Theory,’’ comes from a dismissive com- 6. ID rejects naturalism as principle of science, and de- ment on evolution made by an attendee of the trial and mands an acceptance of supernatural cause to be al- overheard by Miller. lowed as an explanation of natural events. ‘‘Only a Theory’’ asks us to imagine the fantastic sugges- tion that cells might contain a message in their deepest struc- Miller addresses the two positive and testable propositions ture and function that there is an architect, a designer of living put forward by ID, specified complexity and irreducible com- things. This is the world-transforming promise made by ID. plexity. The ID arguments for specified complexity claim that According to ID, the imprints of the architect’s design are to evolution cannot produce new information. ‘‘Only a Theory’’ be found in the basic machinery of life. Thus, the crucial cites computer simulations that show this claim to be incor- sciences for understanding our origins are no longer compar- rect. Perhaps more concretely for biologists, Miller also de- ative anatomy or paleontology, but have become cell biology scribes fascinating studies in which Darwinian selection has and biochemistry. ID proponents claim that they have pro- been observed to give rise in bacteria to novel enzymes that vided a revolutionary outlook on the nature of the scientific digest nonnatural substances such as nylon in a matter of a enterprise. Revolutionary idea perhaps, but we need a clear few years. Gene duplication, mutation, and selection com- picture of what this supposedly new science proposes. Alas, as bined to produce other molecular novelties, such the anti- Miller elegantly shows, the scientific case made by IDers is not freeze protein of some Antarctic fish. The second idea, only vague, but significantly is not based on any research irreducible complexity, has been made famous through its done by them. ID has been as slippery to pin down as a snappy icon, the mousetrap. It’s a machine. Take a piece off, 130 & 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation & 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Raff Book review 131 it doesn’t catch mice. Ergo, designed not evolved. ID makes involve molecular scaffolding and progressive substitution of the same claim for complex biomolecules, and has identified molecular players, such as in the switch from fetal to adult examples. Miller goes on to again demolish these by now hemoglobin. stock ID icons, the bacterial flagellar motor, and blood co- Miller effectively confronts some of the issues that trouble agulation. Miller in addition, makes clear the relationship of those who don’t like evolution, because they believe it makes ID to creationism, a relationship denied by ID adherents. us ‘‘just animals,’’ and removes any ethical foundation, or That is, if the existence of complex biological entities (be they meaning to our lives. His discussions of mutation, random- genes, cells, or horses) requires a designer, the designer can’t ness, contingency, and convergence are important because stop there. The designer also must execute the design, an act they bear on the yearning for purpose as well as science. But if of creation. A series of macroevolutionary changes then rep- there is a disappointing section to the book, it is the discussion resents the creation of each new entity all through geological of why Americans, who certainly appreciate its practical ap- history. It may not be sudden literal biblical creationism, but plications, deny whole chunks of science. The cultural rela- ID is creationism all the same. The last element, the rejection tivism he discusses is a destructive way to view science. It by ID of methodological naturalism in science too is might well allow a lazy public faced with arguments about effectively quashed in ‘‘Just a Theory’’Fno unequivocal ev- evolution and creationism to go along with a ‘‘well, neither idence exists for a grand design. We live in a natural can be proven, so we might as well teach the controversy’’ universe operating by natural rules in principle discoverable way to avoid contention in schools. However, it is not a con- by science. vincing argument as the cause of creationist beliefs among Miller argues well against the concept on evidence from people who are likely to hold an absolute religious faith. biochemistry and molecular evolution. However, the book Miller is certainly correct in asking if it is not the case that misses an opportunity to make a strong evo-devo case against ‘‘. ID’s ultimate target is not to ‘correct’ the mistakes of irreducible complexity. The discussion of evo-devo wastes evolution but to destroy scientific rationalism itself?’’ effort on the lame ID discussions of Haeckel’s doctored ‘‘Only a Theory’’ is a lively and knowledgeable addition to drawings. Nor will the sight of a diagram of shared Hox genes the literature debunking the continuing efforts of creationists in vertebrate embryos make ID believers drop Genesis into to subvert the honest teaching of science. The science of the the scientific discard box. Irreducible complexity is not only book is informed, and Miller’s strategy of looking seriously at evolutionarily static; it is developmentally static as well. All the scientific pretences of ID serves as a powerful scaffold on cellular and organismal structures have an ontogeny. All that whichtohangIDwithitsowndesignerrope.Nottoworry irreducibly complex structure arises from no obvious struc- thoughFcreationism has staying power. The Louisiana ‘‘Sci- ture. Think of the incredible plumbing choice that has to be ence Education Act’’ newly signed into law in 2008, allows made in formation of the urogenital system in mammalian teachers to introduce ‘‘supplemental textbooks and other in- males versus females. True, there are genetic and molecular structional materials’’ specifically about evolution, the origins systems at play, but the structure has to form de novo. There of life, global warming, and human cloning into their classes. is no homunculus in the egg. Further, irreducibly complex New tactics bring new life to creationist follies, but that is yet molecular entities also have ontogenies. These assemblies can another story. .