Replies

Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them.

Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?

One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse. 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. 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."

Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions. Now while both religions can use some of the same technologies to scientifically prove certain portions of their belief systems, they are still religions that need the followers to have faith.

The difference is one religion has millions of variations with many different names to entice many different people depending upon the many different desires of man. Ultimately, this religion boils down to a belief that man is or can be God. So this religion try's as it has for thousands of years to dispel any notion that the true God of the Universe is the sole Creator and Judge of that which He created.

The other religion say's that the universe and everything in it, including man, was created by the one and only "I Am", who was and is and is to come. This religion has for 3500 years based its belief upon the Scriptures, first the Hebrew Scriptures and then later upon the New Testament Scriptures. This religion has been forced by those who would discount it as nothing more then an emotional collection of fables and fairy tales to seek ways of debating for the minds of the intellectually educated masses of modern society. In doing so they have mastered the same methods used by evolutionists, and now stand toe to toe in their ability to convince the educated they are right.

So now we are all at the point of time where we could argue and debate each other until God Himself returns and creates enough heat to melt the very elements both sides debate over. However you look at it, both sides are ultimately putting their money on their ability to have more faith then the other side. Christians admit that our belief in God does come down to faith, now we have one of the leading proponents of the other side admitting the same thing.

The great unwashed in the middle are the true targets of both sides. I for one bring these subjects up so that I may convince one or two of the undecideds every once in a while that my side is right. If by the grace of God I can change the belief of one who has committed their faith to the religion of evolution, then Praise to God we will have one less soul burning in hell when Christ returns.

[Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them.]

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?