I like the book, but found it a bit confusion. It is evolutionary biology? is it theology? It certainly made me think, and contemplate, which I think may have been the overall goal, so that was achieved.

Positives: Easy to read and an interesting topic for a book.
Negatives: Too many fallacies, too much over-simplification,
maybe I need to come back and try this book another time.

I would say, give it a shot and see what your opinion is on the work.

Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for the eARC in exchange for my honest review.

I wished I had made notes while reading this book. The book is well written in that it was a pleasant read. I enjoyed it. The book is not well written in that the writer makes numerous philosophical errors and uses logical fallacies. He both rejects the "ghost in the machine" and defends the "ghost in the machine" by claiming the complexity of the neurological complexity of the brain creates the mind. The human is either completely controlled by only chemical and physical processes (not allowing "free will"), or one must allow for the "ghost in the machine some way. One can not both claim there is no "ghost" and free will. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.

Really an enjoyable book. Covers well the arguments for and against evolution. with particular emphasis on the problem of evolution and free will. Wiill probably write review online close to pub date

In his forthcoming book The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will (April 2018), Kenneth Miller tries to unpack the reasons why evolution is rejected by so many people. Evolution deniers are concerned about the ontological and ethical consequences of modern scientific theory. Many are perfectly fine with the evolutionary history of fish, but they insist that humans were uniquely created by a loving God.

Today, evolutionary biology is applied not only to human anthropology but also to human psychology, social behavior, and even art. E.O. Wilson has applied his research on ant colonies to the understanding of human behavior. Others attribute our preference for landscape art to our evolutionary history as hominids living in the jungles of Africa.

But how much of the above is grounded in actual science? Quite a bit, actually. Miller cites numerous studies to show that while popular scientists often exaggerate what we can know about human behavior based on evolutionary biology, humans are just as much a product of evolution as other animals; humans and other animals share similar traits.

But these studies seem to undermine human dignity and to preference aggression and selfishness. Creationists consider evolutionary biology as a threat to human exceptionalism and everything that flows from such a lofty perspective on our species.

Full-blown Creationists are not the only ones concerned. While rejecting young earth Creationism as unscientific, Marilynne Robinson is critical of what she refers to as “Darwinism”. In her essay “The Death of Adam”, which I read last year, Robinson bemoans the apparent nihilism inherent in evolutionary biology. Humans are no longer the center of creation. We are the accidental product of a mindless process that favors aggression and selfishness.

In The Human Instinct, Kenneth Miller offers a more optimistic but equally scientific alternative to the brutal nihilism professed by biologists like E. O. Wilson. After a few chapters dedicated to the defense of human evolution, Miller moves to considering the ontological (related to being) and ethical implications of modern science. He too is concerned about justice, free will, and human exceptionalism. But he doesn’t look for answers in the non-material. We are material organisms, and science may one day be able to explain the entire universe in material terms. Still, there are uncertainties inherent in life.

By assuming the role of Marilynne Robinson’s interlocutor, Miller acknowledges that some criticisms of evolutionary biology are worthy of consideration. Anyone who has studied evolutionary biology (as I have) has struggled with the questions of human dignity and free will. If there isn’t anyhing unique about humans, should we model ourselves after ants? Does human life mean anything outside of the context of reproduction? Is free will compatible with evolution? If not, how can humans be responsible for their actions?

Miller’s treatment of these topics is nuanced and well-grounded in science. He exposes the ongoing controversies in the scientific community surrounding the evolutionary basis of human behavior without once denying that humans are animals. Kenneth Miller is, after, a cell biologist at Brown University and an outspoken critic of Intelligent Design. He is the co-author of the book on the right, which was my biology textbook in high school.

The Human Instinct is a good follow-up to Finding Darwin’s God (1999) and a much-needed alternative to the overly pessimistic narratives promoted by scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. It doesn’t offer any definitive answers to the “big questions”, but it challenges popular assumptions about the consequences of evolution on human exceptionalism.