Michael Ruse admitted that evolution is a religion
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
Michael Ruse, an evolutionist philosopher of science who previously defended evolution as science has now stated that evolution is actually religious in nature.
Source
- Morris, Henry M., 2001 (Feb.). Evolution Is Religion--Not Science. Impact #332. [1]
- Anonymous. Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion. Answers in Genesis. [2]
- Duane Gish. (Sept 1, 2004). Science, Education, and the subject of Origins. [3]
Responses
- Ruse's point was that two kinds of evolution exist side-by-side. There's the powerful scientific theory of evolution which is well-evidenced and one of the crowning achievements of science, and there's the quasi-religious evolution which promotes particular moral or social theories. His purpose is to prevent the two from being confused. Unfortunately, creationists have misused his essays on the subject to promote their own purposeful confusion of the two.
- Ruse specifically pointed out several times that evolution (including common descent) is scientific. There are, however, other things called evolution which are not. For example, in Is Evolution a Secular Religion, he writes: ". . . if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry."
- What if it was claimed that "John Doe, a creationist theologian who previously defended creationism as science, has now stated that creationism is actually religious in nature." Would you accept this as an argument against creationism? An appeal to authority is a poor argument at best. Science is based on evidence, not social hierarchy. Michael Ruse can say whatever he wants, but it will not change the facts.
- If a science is defined as a religion, and a religion-creationism is defined as science, then religion and science have been broadened as to make them meaningless. One could object to anything taught in science class by calling it religious. In fact, under this new definition, all of science is religious, and might not be teachable.
- So the first book of the Bible is not religious, then? Even if evolution was a religion, at very best this puts it on equal footing with creationism (which certainly is religious), rather than giving creationism an advantage.
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Relativism (calling evolution a religion does not put creationism on equal footing with it)
- Appeal to Authority (Michael Ruse said it, so it must be true)
- Quoting Out of Context
References
- Ruse, Michael, 2000 (May 13). Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. National Post.
- Ruse, Michael, 2003 (Mar.). Is Evolution a Secular Religion?. Science 299:1523-1524. [4]
- Harrub, Brad, 2003. Is Evolution Ready to Take Over Christianity? [5]
