Michael Ruse's new book & interview

[JLK]

The Evolution-Creation Struggle (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674016874/qid=1123598880/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/103-1963589-6907851), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005. 310 pp. ISBN 0-674-01687-4

The 22 July issue of Science carried a review entitled Evolution And Religion:Seeing Similarities (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5734/560?ck=nck). Sahotra Sarkar didn't feel completely comfortable with Ruse's frame. (full review (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/560) may not be accessible to everyone.)

Long interview w/ Ruse (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html) about the book. (Have to watch an ad first.)
Seems to be destined to be not merely a quote mine for creationists - more like a quote planetoid.

[Urvogel Reverie]

The Evolution-Creation Struggle (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674016874/qid=1123598880/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/103-1963589-6907851), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005. 310 pp. ISBN 0-674-01687-4

The 22 July issue of Science carried a review entitled Evolution And Religion:Seeing Similarities (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5734/560?ck=nck). Sahotra Sarkar didn't feel completely comfortable with Ruse's frame. (full review (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/560) may not be accessible to everyone.)

Long interview w/ Ruse (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html) about the book. (Have to watch an ad first.)
Seems to be destined to be not merely a quote mine for creationists - more like a quote planetoid.

I just loved the Salon interview. Fellow biologists at Conradi at FSU were absolutely floored to learn that they were in fact National Socialists, but with a stiff-armed salute and click of shiny boots I corrected their mistaken ideas about themselves. Ruse is nothing less than a creationist shill, a Quisling, and a reprehensible snipe. The worst part of it all is having to know that every day at work, I am within walking distance of the bastard :mad:

[RBH]

Ruse has prostituted himself so long that he's no longer recognizable. Now he's just a book flogger.

RBH

[Aegeri]

He's also had his brain eaten by the Hitler Zombie, which is never a good look:

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekend-of-dead-hitler-zombie-escapes.html

:D

[RBH]

He's also had his brain eaten by the Hitler Zombie, which is never a good look:

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekend-of-dead-hitler-zombie-escapes.html

:DYikes!

[RBH]

Jason Rosenhouse dissects Ruse (http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/ruse-vs-weisberg.html).

RBH

[Aria]

Why is it that nobody that ever claims this "evolutionary religion" thing can ever provide any examples of it in action? What caricature does this religion draw towards other religions? What the hell is Ruse talking about? I swear I feel like I am on another planet from these people. "Respected" or not, he's full of shit.

[Oolon Colluphid]

(ex-)IIDB's Hugo Holbling interviews Ruse (http://www.galilean-library.org/ruse.html)

"Creationist shill" might be a bit extreme. 'Up his own arse' is more like it. But then, he's a philosopher... :devil3:

[Clutch]

(ex-)IIDB's Hugo Holbling interviews Ruse (http://www.galilean-library.org/ruse.html)

"Creationist shill" might be a bit extreme. 'Up his own arse' is more like it. But then, he's a philosopher... :devil3:

Yeah, those frickin philosophers are always trying to elevate themselves by denigrating fields they can't be arsed to learn about...


Sorry, what? :devil3:


Anyhow, I've made my already (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=710514#post710514) aired (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=967009#post967009) my views on Ruse's recent work.

[JLK]

What the hell is Ruse talking about? ..."Respected" or not, he's full of shit.Ruse's degree of respectableness among philosophers of science took a bit of a hit, Once Upon A Time.
In what is perhaps the most famous court case next to Scopes, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge Overton, based on Ruse's testimony, decided to define in 5 points what science was. Other philosophers jumped all over Ruse/Overton's simplistic claims. (example (http://spot.colorado.edu/~eklundm/handout9.pdf))

Several years later, Ruse admitted he was wrong, and agreed that these were not good criteria - at a fricking ID conference of all places. This enabled 2 years of propagandistic crowing by the IDiots that "Ruse gave away the store" and that the process and qualitites of science was completely up for grabs and arbitrary. They are still milking this to some extent.

[doubtingt]

From the reviews, its not entirely clear what Ruse is arguing.

Is he arguing that evolution and the facts of nature it explains have theological implications and that creationists are those who counter these implications by denying evolution?

Or, is he saying that evolution has no real implications, but ideologically motivated scientists are manufacturing fallacious implications that creationist are objecting to?

These are very different arguments and while the latter is rarely true and has nothing to do with the widespread resistence to evolution, the former is a valid point that is often overlooked or even denied by those trying to sell evolution to resistent theists.

[Urvogel Reverie]

(ex-)IIDB's Hugo Holbling interviews Ruse (http://www.galilean-library.org/ruse.html)

"Creationist shill" might be a bit extreme. 'Up his own arse' is more like it. But then, he's a philosopher... :devil3:

Gah! Silence your impertinent tongue, Oolon Colluphid, from its slanderous attack upon philosophy! I think creationist shill is perfect: what else does one call someone who compares evolutionary biology to National Socialism, praises the sacrifices of intrepid 'creation scientists' and calls evolution a religion all in the same breath?