Ken Miller: Is He Consistent In His Application of Science?

Ken Miller is a biology professor and vocal proponent of science in the battle against creationism and intelligent design (ID). He was the plaintiff's lead expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, challenging the school board 's mandate to incorporate Intelligent Design into the curriculum.

However, Dr. Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic and a believer in "theist evolution". According to Wikipedia, theistic evolution asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. Thus, theistic evolutionists reject the active intervention within evolution that ID proponents claim. However, are these concepts really significantly different? They both posit an intelligent creator of the universe and everything in it.

Since there is no evidence in support of either theist evolution or intelligent design, why should someone who is educated in and accepting of science methods and principles accept theist evolution or intelligent design? He or she should not, to be consistent in thinking. However, many people do and this blogger was one of them for decades. A person may work within the parameters of science professionally, then turn off that process and believe something without evidence when in a non-professional environment. This blogger broke away from such mental gymnastics. Will Ken Miller ever make the same move toward consistency of thought?