Posted on 10/24/2005 5:45:16 PM PDT by gobucks
Without any obvious planning by a higher power, the emergence of Michael Ruse as the foremost philosopher of evolutionary theory now seems scientifically confirmable.
Even before his newest book, works such as "The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw" (1979); "Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology" (1996); "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?" (1999); "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian: The Relationship Between Science and Religion" (2001); and "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" (2003), suggested an innate reluctance to adapt to other subject matters.
The consequence -- a formidable one amid the explosion of sages debating the merits of "intelligent design" as the "Scopes II" case leaps to front-page attention -- is that he actually knows what he's talking about. More important, he knows historic aspects of the controversy that others should be talking about before assuming the position -- cliched Red or Blue -- they favor.
Ruse, a professor of philosophy at Florida State University, makes clear that he's a strong supporter of evolution as a scientific theory. He rejects biblical literalism and intelligent design.
Evolution as worldview
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. Any fair history of evolution, Ruse says -- he prefers to call the ideological strain "evolutionism" -- reveals it to be a Trojan horse carrying an ideology of "progress" that can't be deduced from Darwin.In "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," Ruse concentrates on the cultural history of evolutionary theory. The first stage began in the mid 18th-century, he explains, when evolutionary theory amounted to a "pseudoscience" like phrenology, wrapped in exhortations about moral progress.
With "The Origin of Species" (1859), Ruse states, Darwin yanked evolutionary theory toward "professional" science by focusing on empirical evidence and suggesting an explanatory model -- natural selection in the struggle for existence -- to account for its mechanics. It required no designer, just a theory of functional development.
Where Darwin failed
What many laymen don't understand, Ruse says -- particularly secular humanists whose image of science's logical rigor exceeds that of many philosophers of science -- is that Darwin's model did not succeed in making evolution a "professional" science in the 19th century.
As Ruse details in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," various theorists explained evolutionary change by notions as odd as "jumps" (one might label them "leaps of fate") or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
In Ruse's tale, Darwin's strictly scientific approach to evolution was hijacked in the 19th century by the Victorian reformer Thomas Henry Huxley, who became known as "Darwin's bulldog."
A rival `church'
Huxley, Ruse argues, felt he needed to build a rival "church" to defeat archaic Anglican and Christian beliefs, and put man, not God, at the center of life.
Evolution became his "cornerstone." With the help of philosopher Herbert Spencer, who extended "survival of the fittest" thinking to social theory, Huxley promoted evolutionary thinking as a worldview hostile to sacred religious truths. Ruse cleverly capsulizes this in an analogy: Huxley was to Darwin as Paul was to Jesus.
The upshot in the 20th century, Ruse relates, was a third phase of evolutionary theory, neo-Darwinism, in which scientists brought greater coherence to it by uniting Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics, but retained Huxley's value-laden commitment to "progress" and hostility to religion. Ruse cites Richard Dawkins as a scientist who fits that mold.
Readers eager to understand this story in its nuances should turn to "The Creation-Evolution Struggle." The book undermines the notion that the evolution/creation dispute is simply hard science versus mushy religion. Simplistically, it may be, but not simply. As Ruse shows, it's often more like secular religion versus non-secular religion, even if most of the "professional" science remains on the evolution side.
Ya wanna cough up a name and a link?
Minuets, Gigues, Gavottes, Allemands? Maybe we only have the Allemand left. with your left hand, a left to your partner, and a right and left grand....
I've always had a soft spot for cakewalks.
Golliwog fan?
I found ragtime interesting too.
We play two gavottes, but the young people these days don't know what to do so they just sit and listen. They don't even know how to rock. They are good at looking stuned when it snows, not knowing what to do with a snow shovel. What's the matter with these kids today?
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?
Hasn't anyone on FR ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium? Guess not...
Oooo, ooo, I can, I can!
It's a fabrication used by Evos to explain the HUGE gaps in the fossil record. Since there is NO physical evidence to prove their premise that one species mutated into an entirely new species (transmutation) and that not enough time has elapsed for it to have happened anyway, then stuff just must have made sudden jumps and leaps from the one to the next.
And they say we make a leap of faith!!!
Creationists are never embarrassed when caught lying. They do the work of the lord of lies.
Why did many of the Israelis die wandering in the desert?
Israelis?
Nonsequiter. There is no discernable connection between science and Darwinism. Darwinism is a specialized form of Hinduism.
I guess I misinterpreted "evolutionism", as meaning the currently accepted (by most scientists) process of evolution; which would be Punc. Equil. Oh well...
Ok, and Creationisms theory on the gaps is more valid than Punc. Equil.? Darwinian Gradualism is an ongoing process even within Punc. Equil. too. There certainly was enough time for these things to happen; but I guess when you believe the world is 6000 years old... The Catholics call it the mystery of faith, and I absolutely believe in God, which is faith. It can never be proven to me or anyone until we die; (unless the end times come in our lifetimes) but science can be all but proven, even if some people refuse to see the truth. My faith is so strong, that I have absolutely no problem reconciling my belief in God with the process by which He created everything, which would be some form of evolution. The process is not completely understood now, and may never be, but much of it is. At least we can all agree that liberals suck... :)
Because the Palestinians shot an RPG at them??? I don't think I quite follow what you mean here...
Yeah, Wikipedia is the paragon of excellence in knowledge! /sarcasm/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.