Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?
Ok.
One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse.
Nice try. Michael Ruse is not a scientist. He's a philosopher and historian.
In 2005 five he wrote a book titled "The Evolution Creation Struggle". Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design.
No, he didn't. He wrote it as an overview of the clash of cultures.
And there is no "growing evidence that supports intelligent design". There is a growing volume of false ID propaganda which is dishonestly claimed to be "growing evidence" by its proponents. I've been following the "ID" movement since day one, and examined the so-called evidence they've proferred. It's PR, not evidence.
Here is and excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book, "My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."
That's nice and all, but Ruse is not a scientist, and as he makes entirely clear in the introduction of his book (you *have* actually read it, I hope), he's not addressing the actual state of the *science* here, he's addressing the "culture clash". The *clash* in his view is due mostly to those with opposing worldviews, *not* a clash over the science itself. He makes this clear in the introduction when he makes a distinction between "evolution" (the science) and "evolutionism" (a metaphysical worldview which incorporates parts of evolution). In the intro, he writes, "At the most basic level, the clash is between those who push some form of evolutionism and those who push some form of creaitonism -- a clash between two rival metaphysical world pictures."
Could you please explain why you misrepresented his actual view by presenting the passage from page 253 out of context?
And could you also please explain why you mispresented this passage as a statement about the validity of the *science* of evolutionary biology, when it most certainly was NOT?
Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions.
Even if that were the case -- if the culture clash over evolution was based on metaphysical worldviews and not in large part also a battle between those who feel it is very imporant that valid science not be dishonestly maligned by those who wish to shout it down out of a misplaced belief that it's a threat to their religion -- that still wouldn't magically turn his comment into any kind of statement on the validity of the science, since that's NOT the topic he was addressing.
So again, please explain why you misrepresented this passage as what Ruse has to say about "this so called theory that is scientifically provable" when that's not what he was saying?
But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we?
How about: ". . . the Creationists fail entirely to make their case. Their arguments are rotten, through and through." (Darwinism Defended, p. 321). How about: "[Interview question:] Is it appropriate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in biology class? [Ruse's answer:] I do not think it appropriate to teach non-science in a biology class – especially non-science that is really a form of literalist Christianity in disguise. Even if it were appropriate, I would not want the kind of conservative evangelical religion taught, that I think ID represents." (Paul Comstock inverview with Ruse, April 2007). How about: "[describing his court testimony:] Technically speaking, they were just trying to show that creation science is not science. So my job as a philosopher was to testify as to the nature of science and the nature of religion, and show that evolution is science, and creation science is religion." (Interview in March/April 2009 issue of "The Believer").
Gee, it turns out that Ruse really does consider evolution to be valid science, and creation science and "ID" to be not science. How about that?
“But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we?” [excerpt]You like Michael Ruse?
‘Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.’ —Michael Ruse [link]