Toward the end of his book, Miller explains his need to unite science and religion: science does not explain the meaning and purpose of life. That may be, but why should we assume religion explains such things any better? Just because religion attempts to answer such questions does not mean its answers are correct. And such answers never seem to achieve any consensus. What is the meaning of life? Your answer is as good as mine--or just as bad.
G.M. Jackson, Debunking Darwin's God: A Case Against BioLogos and Theistic Evolution
consensus, explanations, meaning-of-life, science, science-and-religion