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.
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
Sorry, but Ruse clearly uses the label 'evolutionism', not 'science' in the generic.
Darwinism and evolutionism pretty much mean the same thing thus...
We don't need any nuances. Oldances were good enough for the Founders, they are good enough for us.
Not very much. A few people like Dawkins more or less agree with Ruse and give him his arguments.
But for most of us the issue is about whether to let creationism interfere with science and science education.
"Darwinism and evolutionism pretty much mean the same thing thus"
No, they don't. Hasn't anyone on FR ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium? Guess not...
I have never known a Philosophy of Science guy that had any earthly understanding of what science actually does. Sometimes I think they are afraid to find out.
ping
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.
Are you sure? What you said fits more the National Socialism with its stress on race struggle.
Marx system is derived from Hegel and sees conflicts as the way for the Absolute to come into harmony, unity and perfection (in future Communist society). When the main work of Darwin was published in 1859 the views of Marx were already formed.
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
What the creationists seem to miss in all this is this tiny little line:
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" [underline mine]
The concept of 'progress' which is not contained in the ToE and not promulgated by any evos here or elsewhere is something that only exists today in creationist propaganda.
What is also missed by the creos here is the fact the article refers to Huxley and others who 150 years ago decided to make evolution a world view rather than a science. This is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.
The concept of evolution as progress does not inhabit Dawkins cranium as Ruse claims. Dawkins however considers Atheism progress. Dawkins considers the removal of religion as progress. He uses evolution as a tool, as did Huxley in his time. The manner in which Dawkins uses evolution does not mean that the study of evolution or the Theory of Evolution is in any way a religion.
Shall I introduce you to one?
Sure. I admit that my data set is small.
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.