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.
All the good stuff might be over on the other thread, but this one's funner.
I bet gobucks is livid (I hope) 8^)
of Fruit Loops.
LOL!!!!
Of course it is, we're talking about the great Canadian Beaver.
Yeah, conversations always get further and further from the original argument. Oh well... You might be interested to know that I actually have no problem at all with ID being taught along with evolution in schools. What would happen? Some kids who aren't exposed to religious belief might learn a little bit about God and Jesus and become better for it. To take this even further, I'd be okay with the teaching of the Book of Genesis along with evolution. This is America, a Western and English country, and the bible is our collective cultural cornerstone. I personally believe God created everything differently than the book says, I adhere to the idea of humans having written the bible and that it was translated so many times that I don't literally believe it means days. But, I respect people who do take that word literally. See, this is why conservatives are smarter than liberals. I don't see two liberals who disagree so much on an issue being this civil to each other in a discussion. :)
I remember very vividly in my high school science class, the teacher saying he believed in God and did not accept evolution. He still taught it as he had to, but he made sure we knew where his true loyalties lay.
I would not go so far to say that kids should be taught about Jesus in public school. That's for the family to decide. I don't think teaching the creation story is religous, though. Even in the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers said they held the truths as "self-evident" that we were created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. They did not even think there would come a day that we would actually question the existence of God it was so obvious to them.
As far as the Bible being the true word of God, I have to say I am totally convinced it is. I have a BA in Biblical Education and I learned plenty about its origins. That information is readily available if you want to research it further. Just a few tidbits to tempt your curiosity, though:
Scholars that participate in the translations that are made today can still use manuscript copies from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. Look in the first section of your Bible, it should tell you who worked on the version you have. Granted, some versions are better than others but there are concordances you can use that show you the exact words used and their meanings.
There are so many prophetic and scientific parts within the Bible, that mere men could not possibly have written it.
Hope this gets you thinking.
It's an interesting subject at the least. I need to read the entire bible again, and take notes as I go along. What I was trying to say about the translation, and didn't really articulate is that even if the words didn't get changed, they still might have had a different meaning according to the writer. A day could have had symbological meaning perhaps. Maybe a day meant a much longer time period. Just a theory I have. I don't know. If I knew for sure, I wouldn't be here talking about it on FR anyway.
Thanks, I'll definitely check out the book you mentioned.
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.