Skip to comments.

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.

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.