Thursday, February 02, 2006
A Ruse By Any Other Name . . .
.
As I noted, Ruse posits the existence of what he calls "evolutionism," a species of evolutionary thought that supposedly reaches beyond testable science into metaphysics. There is an interview with Ruse in the Dallas News (may need free registration) where he expands on his concept of evolutionism:
In any case, as Ruse notes, this "stuff" amounts to popular work, not scientific papers. If they see something transcendent in what science has revealed to us, why are they somehow wrong to express it? Are they required to stay within the bounds of the "purely scientific" (whatever that may be) or are they allowed to express thoughts on wider topics, the way, say, philosophers are?
I have already discussed the recent essay, "When Cosmologies Collide," by religion writer Judith Shulevitz, which reviews Michael Ruse’s new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Harvard University Press, 2005).
As I noted, Ruse posits the existence of what he calls "evolutionism," a species of evolutionary thought that supposedly reaches beyond testable science into metaphysics. There is an interview with Ruse in the Dallas News (may need free registration) where he expands on his concept of evolutionism:
I don't think there's any question [there is a religious element in what many "Darwinists" do]. If you look at some of the popular books, like [Stephen] Gould's or the [Richard] Dawkins stuff, and Ed Wilson's On Human Nature – all of these at some level transcend the purely scientific. I do think that often evolutionists, at least in the public domain, move over past science into secular religion or secular humanism.
As I've defined [evolutionism], it's making a secular religion out of evolution. It's seeing evolution as having a transcendent meaning, having an upward meaning for humans – progress. I'm not saying evolutionists put on fancy dress and go up to the altar and things like that. [But] if you think of a religion as giving you a certain world perspective with moral direction, then it seems to me this is what traditional social Darwinism used to do. Get it absolutely clear: I'm not saying that people like Ed Wilson are neo-social Darwinists. But I do see something more than just science going on here.
One problem with proclamations like this is that they depend upon definitions of "transcendent meaning" that are subjective themselves. For example, John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, in an article about the decision on the Dover school board’s Intelligent Design policy, gave this definition of what he found to be the religious element in what Darwinists do:
The key to resolving the court's dilemma is to recognize that all views of origins are religious. We observe what is here, not how it originated. We see its unimaginable complexity and intricate processes operating in the present. Any speculation of past origins is fraught with philosophical overtones, and no one view should dominate public education.
In short, anything that science does that impinges in the slightest on Morris’ preferred mythos is "religion." While Ruse, no doubt, has a less Looney Toons definition of "transcendent," there will still be more than enough room to dispute his interpretation of the religious nature of the works of Gould, Dawkins or Wilson.
In any case, as Ruse notes, this "stuff" amounts to popular work, not scientific papers. If they see something transcendent in what science has revealed to us, why are they somehow wrong to express it? Are they required to stay within the bounds of the "purely scientific" (whatever that may be) or are they allowed to express thoughts on wider topics, the way, say, philosophers are?
.
Comments:
<< Home
Where does he get this about Gould? I don't know any writer who more explicitly rejects the concept of evolution as progress. Yeah, it's just an interview, but I really expect better from Ruse.
# posted by 
: 9:21 AM
: 9:21 AM
I happen to be reading Steven Pinker's Blank Slate, the first third of which is a rehash of the whole "science wars" for and against sciobiology and evolutionary psychology. There were a lot of charges of moralizing and promoting "Marxist" ideas of the perfectibility of human beings laid against the anti crowd, including Gould. I suspect that was what Ruse was groping for but I'll have to get the book to see.
Post a Comment
<< Home
