Michael Ruse Balances the Scales in Creation-Evolution Conflict

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | July 22, 2005

[bondserv]

Michael Ruse Balances the Scales in Creation-Evolution Conflict    07/22/2005  
Sahotra Sarkar seems in a bit of dilemma about how to treat Michael Ruse’s new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Harvard, 2005).  In his review of the book in Science,¹ Sarkar knew that Ruse is an important ally in the fight against intelligent design (see 02/18/2003 entry), but he seemed a little bit put off by Ruse’s distinction between evolution and evolutionism.  Ruse is brazen in his claim that most evolutionists have made a religion out of the theory.  Sarkar begins,

In this timely book, Michael Ruse interprets the last 200 years of conflict between biology and religion as a struggle between evolutionism and creationism.  Evolutionism is not merely an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution.  It consists of “the whole metaphysical or ideological picture built around or on evolution,” including a belief in progress and attempts to reduce cultural and ethical values to evolutionary biology.  As such, it constitutes a “secular religion.”  Thus, for Ruse (a philosopher of science at Florida State University), the debate over creationism is more a conflict between two religions than one between religion and science.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Since such a position seems to discredit the natural scientists’ endeavors to investigate the evolutionary roots of ethics and behavior, including altruism and sexual mores, Sarkar appears to take issue with this claim, but only with kid gloves.  Most of his review is a dispassionate discussion of the contents of the book with only minor criticisms about omissions or misplaced emphases.  For instance, look how he describes Ruse’s depiction of evolutionary theory in the 19th and early 20th century as more religious rhetoric than sound science:

The Enlightenment offered a vision of progress based on human effort.  The emerging pre-Darwinian views of evolution (such as those of Erasmus Darwin, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, and Robert Chambers), although hardly professional science, co-opted this vision in their accounts of organic change.
    Charles Darwin, in contrast, attempted to convert evolution into science by elaborating a material mechanism for it—natural selection.  Darwin was at best ambivalent about the ideology of progress.  (Alfred Russel Wallace was more convinced of its reality—strangely, he receives scant attention in Ruse’s story.)  Moreover, natural selection acting on blind variation was antithetical to the idea of progress with its implied directionality.  In spite of Darwin’s efforts, Ruse argues, evolution did not become established as a professional science in the 19th century or even during the first two decades of the 20th.  Instead, it remained popular science.  Given the generally accepted ideology of progress, natural selection was often abandoned in favor of directional mechanisms of organic change. According to Ruse, during this period, almost all of those who endorsed evolution also endorsed evolutionism.  The social Darwinism of the late 19th century only exemplifies the worst excesses of such an evolutionism.

Nothing but objective reporting so far.  But then, Sarkar gets a little riled when Ruse depicts the cult of progress continuing unabated through the formation of neo-Darwinian theory in the 1930s and beyond:

On Ruse’s account, evolution became a professional science following the modern synthesis of the late 1920s and 1930s.  Ruse argues, though not very convincingly, that the architects of the synthesis continued to uphold an ideology of progress and endorse evolutionism.  He ignores the fact that, with the exception of R. A. Fisher, these architects largely rejected attempts to deploy evolution in the political arena.   (Some, such as J. B. S. Haldane, whom Ruse ignores, often explicitly rejected progress.)  Ruse’s sketch of contemporary evolutionary theory is also idiosyncratic,  with sociobiology presented as that theory’s most significant achievement.  Because the sociobiologists W. D. Hamilton and Edward O. Wilson are the heroes of this story, Ruse claims that contemporary evolutionary biology endorses evolutionism and not merely evolution.

That seems too much to take.  Yet Sarkar is careful not to alienate his ally.  While finding something to praise, he gently scolds Ruse for providing only “an unfortunate whimper” instead of a triumphant charge to inspire the pro-evolution scientists in their battles against creationists:

The final chapters of The Evolution-Creation Struggle turn all too briefly to the contemporary debates over creationism.  Ruse offers a short and cogent critique of intelligent design that concentrates on its failure to spawn any serious scientific research.²  But the book ends with an unfortunate whimper: we are told that we should try to understand the other side; we are not told how Ruse’s understanding of that side will help us prevent the reintroduction of religion in our science classes.

---

¹Sahotra Sarkar, “Evolution and Religion: Seeing Similarities,” Science, Vol 309, Issue 5734, 560 , 22 July 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1115782].  For another review, see the 05/06/2005 entry. ²For contrary evidence, see the 06/25/2005 entry.

Wow: this is quite telling.  Michael Ruse seems to be evolving toward rapprochement with I.D. with each new book.  Although he has been adamant against the cult of progress for quite awhile (see 06/12/2003 commentary), he is making even more startling claims now: (1) most historical evolutionists were more religious than scientific in their embrace of the cult of progress; (2) evolutionism is just as religioous as Christianity, (3) the religion of evolutionism continues to the present day, and (4) evolutionists need to understand the other side.  Point (1) is clear to any halfway objective historian of science and should not be all that controversial.  But points 2, 3, and 4, though flimsy concessions from a creationist view, are almost fighting words to an evolutionist
  .  To maintain their hegemony, the Darwin Party needs its supporters to be devoted to the doctrine that their position is based on science, not religion.  They need to keep the onus of religion on the other side where it can be swept aside as faith-based, irrational, dogmatic and irrelevant.  It must sting like acid for them to hear a Party member claim their views are just as religious as that of their opponents, and that we should try to “understand” the other side instead of fighting them with the full arsenal of Big Science.
    Based on this review, this new book by Ruse must be highly disappointing to those who have lived with the religion-vs-science paradigm embedded in their heads since high school biology class.  If Ruse keeps this up, it won’t be long before the Party condemns him as a heretic and throws him overboard.  If that happens, the creationists and ID community need to be prepared to rescue him and show him what true Christian (unevolved, real) altruism is like (see 06/12/2003 commentary).  They need to provide him clean, clear designer glasses with which to see the world in a new light, a revelation that brings joy, thankfulness and meaning.
    Undoubtedly the softening of Ruse’s hardline position is partly due to his historical research into the unsavory personalities and empty lives of some of Darwinism’s staunchest bulldogs (see 09/02/2004 entry) compared to the friendliness and logic of I.D. supporters with whom he has interacted, like Phillip Johnson.  Creationists need to be careful not to shoot those waving a white flag.  Some of the best allies for design-based science, like Dean Kenyon and Richard Lumsden, were often adamant evolutionists.  Give people space to see the light.  Whether they do or not, keep those Christian graces shining through.  Who knows; maybe Eugenie Scott will be next (see 05/25/2005 entry).

[bondserv]

Ping!

[RaceBannon]

Eugenie Scott next??

LOL!

Now, THAT would be a miracle on par with Saul of Tarsus!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!