[GodGunsGuts]

p. 274
“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”

—Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.

[FatherofFive]

that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress

Did the new strains of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis evolve, or were they newly created? They didn't exist before, so I think it's one or the other.

[Coyoteman]

“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”

Sorry, I have long since ceased to value philosophers' opinions, particularly when it comes to science.

This one seems no different. His rebuttal to the evidence for the theory of evolution is to link "evolutionism" to "a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress."

What a crock! I'm sure serious scientists everywhere are quaking in their boots over that winner!