Unlike many pro-evolution types, however, he agrees with creationists and intelligent-design advocates that evolution often operates as not just a scientific theory about species, but also as a worldview that competes with religion.
Change the subtitle - it should be "Science as a secular religion".
undermines the notion that the evolution/creation dispute is simply hard science versus mushy religion ping
We don't need any nuances. Oldances were good enough for the Founders, they are good enough for us.
ping
Thomas Huxley wasn't the only atheistic philosopher that really liked Darwin's theory. Karl Marx wrote Charles Darwin and asked him if he could dedicate the second volume of Das Capital to Darwin...Darwin refused.
I remember hearing about an evolutionary scientist who when asked why he believed in evolution, he replied, "Because the only alternative is creation."
YEC INTREP
Personally, I'm not a fan of Ruse, but you might consider where you're going with this. If evolutionism is a world view, and evolution is scientifically valid, then that validates the worldview, does it not? It means that competing worldviews may not just be worse or better or different or different in some respects, but demonstrably incorrect.
I'm not a fan of Baptist Christianity either, and I can give you 15 reasons why, but none of thse reasons is that it is demonstrably incorrect. Do you want to concede to me the power to claim that it is not just misguided, but that it can be shown to be scientifically wrong?