Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse a "practicing Anglican"?

You thought I was kidding, did you? Nope. A friend advises me that some reviewer or other baptized Darwinist Michael Ruse as a "practicing Anglican" (= Episcoplian):

New Biological Books History, Philosophy, And Ethics of Biology

Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science

By Michael Ruse. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. $30.00. viii + 264 p.; ill.; index. ISBN: 978-0-521-75594-8. 2010.

Elof Axel Carlson

Biochemistry & Cell Biology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

The author is a philosopher and ardent supporter of evolution by natural selection. He also is a practicing Anglican. His book is an exploration of the conflicts between a scientific worldview (one that excludes supernatural interpretations in matters concerning science) and a religious worldview (one that very much embraces faith, the supernatural, and the central tenets of his Anglican faith). ...

So is Ruse also among the prophets?

Well, Ruse apparently sent his kids to "Anglican tradition" schools when he taught in Canada. But in Canada, that's mainly a way of keeping them from hanging out with Crystal Meth at tax-supported OD High.

In fairness, it doesn't take much belief or effort these days to be a "practicing Anglican", but unless Ruse has a big announcement in store, I'm calling this as just another effort to baptize Darwinism, a la Theodosius Dobzhansky, to gain support among adherents of other religions.

I wonder if the airbrush error will make it onto the 'Net ...

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

I am so far behnd in posting, but ...

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Casey Luskin examines Richard Dawkins' crusade against religion and what it might mean for the teaching of evolution in schools.

Why did Michael Ruse write to Dawkins and tell him that he was an "absolute disaster in the fight against intelligent design"? Listen in and find out.

I have not yet figured out how much the evil Discovery Insitute has paid Dawkins or Ruse ....

That said, Ruse is pretty much right.

From the American Scientist's bookshelf: What Darwinism really means to its supporters

A friend directs me to the American Scientist bookshelf, which features a number of recent books addressing the intelligent design controversy from a materialist perspective - the reviews are an education in themselves:

Richard Bellon, a books columnist at American Scientist writes , about Michael Ruse's Darwinism and Its Discontents

The secular skeptics of natural selection form a more heterogeneous group, and, perhaps inevitably, Ruse's engagement with them lacks the momentum that drives his discussion of creationism. In many cases, as Ruse concedes, critics are responding, understandably if unfortunately, not to Darwin's core ideas but to the ideological uses to which evolution has been put: "Some dreadful stuff has been fobbed off under the umbrella of evolution, and even when it is not that dreadful, some very shaky assumptions have been incorporated." His strategy relies on demonstrating that Darwinism, properly understood, does not really stand behind any of the often-noxious philosophies that have claimed its authority. Despite well-documented abuses, Ruse argues persuasively that "there is no good reason to think that . . . the professional side of modern Darwinism . . . is simply an excuse for promulgating the values of modern (or past) society.

That, of course, is nonsense. Modern Darwinism is about materialism - the idea that the mind is an illusion and humans are just big-brained apes. That is the point of it all, rammed home in so many "cutting edge" books, breathless articles, glitzy TV programs, and dodgy textbooks.

As another American Scientist reviewer Robert J Richards, patiently explains, dismissing Francis Collins' entirely dismissible Language of God ,

Despite Collins's irenic efforts, the well-confirmed results of modern evolutionary theory and genetics do endanger the faith of the religiously minded. Or at least these results should make their religious convictions more precarious.
Collins maintains, as did Darwin, that the moral impulse is an essential component of our humanity. Yet if our various other human traits—reason, personality, emotional responses and so on—have arisen over the millennia through natural selection (which Collins believes to be the case), why is it that only our moral traits require divine intervention? Does not the ability to do science, to create art and to appreciate the beauty of nature also constitute what it means to be human? If these abilities have evolved, why not also moral judgment?

In other words, all those liberal clergy signing the Darwin pledge (I do! I do! I do! believe in Darwin) and even preach on the subject are useful idiots - at best.

And, of course, there is Michael Shermer, an ex-evangelical, explaining to evangelicals why they should embrace Darwinist materialism. Reviewer James Robert Brown notes,

Shermer is quite aware that he's in a battle over culture as well as science, so he often tries to soothe the ruffled feathers of Christians, though not with complete success. After attacking intelligent design as utterly silly, he sympathetically quotes the theologian Paul Tillich: "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." This statement strikes me as bordering on nonsense, and it almost inclines me to sympathize with fundamentalists appalled with the blither that often passes for liberal theology.

Well, in my view, anyone who is not appalled by the blither is either clueless or looking for a safe way to sell out.

Free excerpt from Michael Ruse's Evolution-Creation Struggle

According to Harvard University Press's blurb, in his latest book, Darwinian evolutionist Michael Ruse,

a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality.

Ruse has addressed this theme before in his The Evolution Wars, where he discussed the way in which museums have functioned as temples of naturalism. Anyway, have a look at the free excerpt from the new one,
Evolution-Creation Struggle.

Ruse promises, in the excerpt,

I will tell a tale of evolution and religion that will hold surprises for all of today’s controversialists. The full story is far more complex than any of us, including (especially) us evolutionists, have realized. The dispute, as we shall see, is more than merely a matter of right and wrong. At some deeper level, it involves commitments about the nature of reality and the status and obligations of humans in this reality. In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies—pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind. But these rivals are blood relatives. And, paradoxically, the bitterness of the controversy can be traced in large part to the fact that this is a family feud. The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions. With these things uncovered, I will offer what I hope are fertile and constructive suggestions for moving forward.

The excerpt then gallops through the history of Christianity from its origin to the present day, attempting to explain how many philosophers of recent centuries became skeptical of Christianity and theistic religion generally. I would find it hard to evaluate the progress of the argument in the excerpt because he deals with so much in such short order that the scenery goes by too fast for me, but you be the judge.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar.)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

Darwinians their own worst enemy?

So says Florida State University prof Michael Ruse, who is a Darwinian himself. His forthcoming book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle advances the view that Darwinists "have hurt the cause by habitually stepping outside the bounds of science into social theory."

... Ruse asserts that popular contemporary biologists like Edward O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins have also exacerbated the divisions between evolutionists and creationists by directly challenging the validity of religious belief - Dawkins by repeatedly declaring his atheism (''faith,'' he once wrote, ''is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate''), and Wilson by describing his ''search for objective reality'' as a replacement for religious seeking.

There's also the fact that you actually have to be a Darwinist to see how self-evidently true Darwinism is. I've received literature from any number of causes like that, and always had the same reaction: Who moved the paper recycle bin?

Writer Dizikes of the Boston Globe sounds shocked, shocked that anyone would criticize Darwinist luminaries such as Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson, but he should just get used to it. Ruse is easily among the most interesting writers on Darwinism today, all the more so because he questions the fearless leaders, and — as I am in the habit of shilling books — let me take a moment to recommend his Evolution Wars as well. It provides many useful short readings from various figures in the controversy.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?
- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

- the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory, click on the posted link.

- Bill Dembski threatening to sue the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover, Pennsylvania ID case, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for updates. (Note: In breaking news, this dispute has apparently been settled. See the story for details. )

- Denyse O'Leary's articles on the Smithsonian showing of Privileged Planet, now online at Christianity Today and the Toronto showing, online at christianity.ca.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous comments, comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Further thoughts on the Ruse vs. Dembski confrontation on Nightline on Monday night:

Regarding the confrontation on ABC's Nightline between Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse and ID apologist Bill Dembski:

One person on a private list commented as follows, picking up on Ruse's worry about being sent to a concentration camp, if ID appears plausible:

Frankly, I am concerned too. I have seen evangelicals lust for power over the past 15 years. Now we got it. I think this is polluting the gospel. I think it is a very serious and scholarly question, and I think only the best, most cautious, and humbly motivated theological perspective will enable us to balance political power and gospel influence. And even if we have that, greedy, sinful, rotten, power mongering men will ruin it. Separation of church and state protects the gospel.

How does this relate to ID? Simply put, power will corrupt it too. What are we doing to protect ourselves from the negative influences of power? Let us not think for a moment that we are above this. Since Ruse raised the question, we should ask if ID wins the day, what are we going to do to to protect it from the kind of abuses that Darwinism shows us? Are we going to simply trade places with the Darwinist abusers? What checks and balances do we have? Are we free from a political agenda to carry out research and follow the facts?

I replied to him,

I don't worry much about stuff like that, but then I live in Canada where the government has told one of my fellow parishioners that it cannot guarantee that religious freedom will be respected, if religious people continue to oppose gay marriage. Incidentally, the Canadian government was technically defeated last night in a free vote in the House of Commons, but ignores that and clings to power anyway. Most Canadians are so terrified of traditional Christians that they would vote for anyone and anything, and condone any wrongdoing by government - no matter how unjust or shameful - as an alternative. And the oddest part of all is that nothing has actually happened in Canada that explains this prejudice in rational terms. There is no rational explanation, so stop looking for one. (There are explanations, but they do not involve rational thought or behaviour.)

Okay, now, re the main action, Dembski vs. Ruse: I predicted a few weeks ago that the Darwinists would fundamentally change their strategy and go for the emotional appeal. That is essentially what Ruse was doing on ABC's Nightline.

One particularly clever ploy was to for Ruse to say that Dembski would himself be swept away by the rising tide of right-wing Christian hate.

This worked visually because Bill looks like a nice young fellow who has no idea which direction a Nazi swastika should face or whether one should pile into Ku Klux Klan robes from the top or the bottom.

I suspect that many people will buy Ruse's approach. "Bill may be okay, but look what comes after him," they will say.

The beauty of Ruse's approach is that it is truly content-free. Ruse does not need to offer any evidence that there is a rising tide of right-wing Christian hate or even that students who are allowed to know that some scientists question Darwinism will be changed in any way as a result. (It's been legal in Ontario for years and nothing much has happened, except a complete absence of Kansas-style controversy, which suits us Ontarians fine.)

All Ruse needs to do is create fear of the Rising Tide. Many people are chronically afraid of that kind of thing, and the less they know, the more afraid they are. So the fewer details Ruse gives, the more effective his strategy is. He just has to sound portentous and convincing. Neat.

Dembski correctly pointed out that the people who are out to get him include many Christians who think the Earth is only some thousands of years old, so Dembski is as big a heretic as Darwin (or more so as he claims to be a Christian)

By the way, the Rising Tide (or somebody) also tried to get rid of Dembski at Baylor, a Christian university. But those people were not promoting a six-thousand-year old earth. They just didn't like the idea that the universe and life forms show actual evidence of intelligent design. So it turns out that the Rising Tide runs in no one particular direction on this issue, but Dembski bobs like a cork.

So maybe there is something in ID after all? Must be.

To find out more about my book, go to By Design or by Chance?