DOCSLIB.ORG

Michael Ruse and the Creation-Evolution Controversy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michael Ruse and the Creation-Evolution Controversy Answers Research Journal 5 (2012):125–139. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v5/michael-ruse-creation-evolution.pdf The Unbeliever at War with God: Michael Ruse and the Creation-Evolution Controversy Callie Joubert, P. O. Box 515, Hyper by the Sea, Durban, South Africa 4025 Abstract Dr. Michael Ruse spent more than 40 years of his life fighting creationism. This fact requires an explanation; it also raises the need to clarify a number of misconceptions pertaining to the controversy between creationists and evolutionists. First, the controversy is not a battle between science and religion. Of importance is to understand the dominant worldview that is driving the scientific enterprise today, and why. Second, there is no such person as an atheist. If this truth can be demonstrated from Scripture, then we need to know more about the so-called atheist, especially, what is driving him. The evidence indicates that a fear of God and afterlife play a major role in the psychology of unbelief. Third, the identity of the Creator and the place of Scripture in the Intelligent Design Movement and philosophical theology need to be reconsidered. It disappoints on several serious grounds. And fourth, theistic evolution cannot be reconciled with Scripture, contrary to what Ruse would have Christians believe. Keywords: apologetics, atheist, creationism, evolutionism, fear, materialism, naturalism, physicalism, psychology, theistic evolution, theology, unbelief. Introduction Ruse’s fight against creationists and his conclusions The following sentences reflect some of the thoughts come as no surprise, given what we know about unbelief and beliefs of Dr. Michael Ruse about himself, in the light of Scripture, as we will see. What is also Christianity, and creationists: not strange is that BioLogos (theistic evolutionists) I have impeccable credentials as a creationism could not resist using the beliefs and arguments of fighter . With respect to the main claims of Ruse to bolster their view that “evolution, properly Christianity—loving God [sic], fallen nature, understood, best describes God’s work of creation” Jesus and atonement and salvation—I am pretty (BioLogos 2011).2 What they seem to have missed or atheistic . As it happens, I prefer the term “skeptic” plainly ignored is the crux of Ruse’s argument. to describe my position . That the Creationists and My aim in this paper is accordingly to provide fellow travelers, notably proponents of Intelligent an explanation for Ruse’s behavior, even if only in Design Theory (IDT) would dislike my views I take as part. But Ruse’s arguments also raise the need to axiomatic . I despise their beliefs, and I think them clarify a number of misconceptions pertaining to the deeply dangerous . I am an ardent evolutionist . I controversy between creationists and evolutionists. think that science is the highest form of knowledge— First, I will show why it is a mistake to assume I am a philosophical naturalist (Ross 2005; Ruse that the controversy is a battle between science and 2009a, 2010b, pp. 1, 12). religion. Of importance is to understand the dominant Ruse, a historian and philosopher at Florida worldview that is driving the scientific enterprise State University, never hesitates to inform both his today, and why. The major issues are the nature and readers and listeners exactly where he is coming character of the Creator and Scripture as the true from, what he is doing, and why. Ruse spent 40 years and authoritative Word of God. I will then argue that of his life, he says, observing the ongoing controversy there is no such person as an atheist. If this truth between evolutionists and creationists; he is “fighting can be demonstrated from Scripture, then no person fundamentalists, including proponents of Intelligent can honestly claim that God does not exist. But there Design, on the podium, in print, and in the court is more; it suggests a revision of the assumptions, room.” (Ruse 2011).1 Ruse’s recent evaluation of aims, approaches and arguments of many Christian “Creationism” led him to conclude that “scientifically apologists. Of importance is to know what is driving Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is the so-called atheist. The evidence to be considered confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond will indicate that a fear of God and afterlife play a repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent major role in the psycholog y of unbelief, and that points Design Theory” (Ruse 2007, p. 23). toward the realism of Scripture. In the third section, 1 See also Ruse (2010a) and Ross (2005). 2 Ruse’s views and arguments appear on the BioLogos discussion forum Science and the Sacred (Ruse 2009a), the BioLogos website in the form of an essay (Ruse 2010b), and the BioLogos blog (Ruse 2010c). ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2012, 2016 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 126 C. Joubert I focus on the place of Scripture and the identity of well as the soul” (Taliaferro 2009, p. 2).3 Since it is the Creator in the Intelligent Design Movement and no accident that naturalism targets both the Creator philosophical (analytical) theology. We will see that it and the existence of the soul, it is important to disappoints on several serious grounds. Finally, I will understand that naturalism comprises essentially contend that theistic evolution cannot be reconciled three key elements: scientism (a mental posture with Scripture, contrary to what Ruse would have in terms of which scientific knowledge is held to be Christians believe. superior to any other in kind, if not the only kind of knowledge); an evolutionary story of origins (whatever Section I: exists are products of mindless laws and processes of The Essence of the Creation-Evolution Controversy nature and chance; life “emerged” from non-life, and Far too many people today, including Christians, human beings descended from ape-like creatures conceive of the controversy between Christians and over millions of years), and physicalism (an ontology evolutionists as a battle between science and religion of the kinds of things that exist and their natures; instead of creation and evolution (see Collins 2007, all existent entities and their coming to be consists pp. 4–6). Neither is the controversy a matter of solely of matter or else depend on matter for their Christians opposing science. There are at least two emergence). We should bear in mind that scientism reasons why conceptions such as these are misguided. serves as justification of the evolutionary (naturalist) First, it is important to understand that it story of origins which, in turn, justifies physicalism is a fallacy to believe that [scientific] facts speak for (materialism). themselves—they are always interpreted according to It will be helpful to demonstrate the points made so a framework (Sarfati 1999, pp. 15–16). far. Theologian and philosopher, Nancey Murphy, who What Jonathan Sarfati referred to as a “framework” teaches “christian” philosophy at Fuller Theological is generally known as a paradigm (for example, a Seminary, expressed her scientism, naturalism, and scientific field of study), an ideology and worldview. physicalism as follows: Important about frameworks is their content: concepts [F]or better or for worse, we have inherited a view and presuppositions (beliefs, assumptions) about of science as methodologically atheistic, meaning reality, the kinds of things that exist, their natures, that science . seeks naturalistic explanations for their origin, how they act, how they hang together, all natural processes. Christians and atheists alike how they may be known, and so on (cf. MacArthur must pursue scientific questions in our era without 2003, 2006). Sarfati’s point is that frameworks deeply invoking a creator . (Murphy 2007, pp. 194, 195). influence the phenomena scientists observe, how they Murphy is telling Christians to adopt the rules of are conceived of, and the way they are subsequently so-called atheists but she does not tell them why this explained. Ruse (2011) affirms that paradigms should remain so. For her, “succeed in major part by ignoring certain questions, [N]euroscience is now completing the Darwinian ruling them off limits,” while there is absolutely no revolution, bringing the mind into the purview reason why that should be the case or remain so. of biology. My claim, in short, is this: all of the What is true of scientists is also true of those who human capacities once attributed to the immaterial are interpreting the Bible. In the words of theologian mind or soul are now yielding to the insights of Andrew Kulikovsky, neurobiology . [W]e have to accept the fact that God all misinterpretations and misunderstandings of has to do with brains—crude though this may sound Scripture result from either false presuppositions, (Murphy 2006a, pp. 88, 96). insufficient data or an inadequate or inconsistent What are the “insights” of neurobiology, according hermeneutic (Kulikovsky 2009, p. 37). to her? We no longer “need to postulate the existence It becomes accordingly important to know which of a soul or mind in order to explain life and framework is driving the scientific enterprise and consciousness” (Murphy 1998, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolutionary Epistemology in James' Pragmatism J
    35 THE ORIGIN OF AN INQUIRY: EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY IN JAMES' PRAGMATISM J. Ellis Perry IV University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth "Much struck." That was Darwin's way of saying that something he observed fascinated him, arrested his attention, surprised or puzzled him. The words "much struck" riddle the pages of bothhis Voyage ofthe Beagle and his The Origin of Species, and their appearance should alert the reader that Darwin was saying something important. Most of the time, the reader caninfer that something Darwin had observed was at variance with what he had expected, and that his fai th in some alleged law or general principle hadbeen shaken, and this happened repeat­ edly throughout his five year sojourn on the H.M.S. Beagle. The "irritation" of his doubting the theretofore necessary truths of natu­ ral history was Darwin's stimulus to inquiry, to creative and thor­ oughly original abductions. "The influence of Darwinupon philosophy resides inhis ha ving conquered the phenomena of life for the principle of transi tion, and thereby freed the new logic for application to mind and morals and life" (Dewey p. 1). While it would be an odd fellow who would disagree with the claim of Dewey and others that the American pragmatist philosophers were to no small extent influenced by the Darwinian corpus,! few have been willing to make the case for Darwin's influence on the pragmatic philosophy of William James. Philip Wiener, in his well known work, reports that Thanks to Professor Perry's remarks in his definitive work on James, "the influence of Darwin was both early and profound, and its effects crop up in unex­ pected quarters." Perry is a senior at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmoltth.
    [Show full text]
  • Neither Logical Empiricism Nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was
    Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was By: Daniel Nicholson & Richard Gawne Like a slow-burning story of triumph, the canonical narrative of the history of contemporary philosophy of biology tells the tale of a subfield emerging out of the smoldering ashes of logical empiricist philosophy of science, and the wreckage of an equally futile vitalistic program that preceded it. Most logical empiricists scoffed at the life sciences, and those who did deem it worthwhile to explore the biological realm produced nothing of value. The logical empiricists failed because their project was a prescriptive enterprise whose primary mandate was to bring increased rigour to biology by importing methodological protocols from the physical sciences. Vitalists of the early twentieth century were not stricken with physics-envy, but the animating forces and other metaphysical phantasms they conjured into existence to ward off the threat of reductionism were at least as ill-conceived as anything produced by the logical empiricists. Practitioners associated with the aforementioned schools failed to seriously engage with the science that allegedly inspired their musings, and as a consequence, the philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. Things began to change sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the textbooks by Michael Ruse (1973) and David Hull (1974), together with a series of articles by Ken Schaffner (1967; 1969a; 1969b) and Bill Wimsatt (1970; 1972a; 1972b), found their way into print. These efforts are regularly identified as the first significant contributions to modern philosophy of biology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Biology Edited by David L
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85128-2 - The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology Edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse Frontmatter More information the cambridge companion to THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY The philosophy of biology is one of the most exciting new areas in the field of philosophy and one that is attracting much attention from working scientists. This Companion, edited by two of the founders of the field, includes newly commissioned essays by senior scholars and by up-and- coming younger scholars who collectively examine the main areas of the subject – the nature of evolutionary theory, classification, teleology and function, ecology, and the prob- lematic relationship between biology and religion, among other topics. Up-to-date and comprehensive in its coverage, this unique volume will be of interest not only to professional philosophers but also to students in the humanities and researchers in the life sciences and related areas of inquiry. David L. Hull is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Northwestern University. The author of numerous books and articles on topics in systematics, evolutionary theory, philosophy of biology, and naturalized epistemology, he is a recipient of a Guggenheim Foundation fellowship and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Michael Ruse is professor of philosophy at Florida State University. He is the author of many books on evolutionary biology, including Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? and Darwinism and Its Discontents, both published by Cam- bridge University Press. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he has appeared on television and radio, and he contributes regularly to popular media such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Playboy magazine.
    [Show full text]
  • DANIEL DENNETT and the SCIENCE of RELIGION Richard F
    DANIEL DENNETT AND THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION Richard F. Green Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Minnesota-Duluth Duluth, MN 55812 ABSTRACT Daniel Dennett (2006) recently published a book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” which advocates the scientific study of religion. Dennett is a philosopher with wide-ranging interests including evolution and cognitive psychology. This talk is basically a review of Dennett’s religion book, but it will include comments about other work about religion, some mentioned by Dennett and some not. I will begin by describing my personal interest in religion and philosophy, including some recent reading. Then I will comment about the study of religion, including the scientific study of religion. Then I will describe some of Dennett’s ideas about religion. I will conclude by trying outlining the ideas that should be considered in order to understand religion. This talk is mostly about ideas, particularly religious beliefs, but not so much churches, creeds or religious practices. These other aspects of religion are important, and are the subject of study by a number of disciplines. I will mention some of the ways that people have studied religion, mainly to provide context for the particular ideas that I want to emphasize. I share Dennett’s reticence about defining religion. I will offer several definitions of religion, but religion is probably better defined by example than by attempting to specify its essence. A particular example of a religion is Christianity, even more particularly, Roman Catholicism. MOTIVATION My interest in philosophy and religion I. Beginnings I read a few books about religion and philosophy when I was in high school and imagined that college would be full of people arguing about religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Sciences Can Act As a Ground for Ethics” in Ayala, Francisco and Arp, Robert, Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology
    1 This chapter to be published as: Ruse, Michael (2009). “The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics” in Ayala, Francisco and Arp, Robert, Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics Michael Ruse Ethics is an illusion put in place by natural selection to make us good cooperators. – Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson (1985) This paper is interested in the relationship between evolutionary thinking and moral behavior and commitments, ethics. There is a traditional way of forging or conceiving of the relationship. This is traditional evolutionary ethics, known as Social Darwinism. Many think that this position is morally pernicious, a re- description of the worst aspects of modern, laissez-faire capitalism in fancy biological language. It is argued that, in fact, there is much more to be said for Social Darwinism than many think. In respects, it could be and was an enlightened position to take; but it flounders on the matter of justification. Universally, the appeal is to progress—evolution is progressive and, hence, morally we should aid its success. I argue, however, that this progressive nature of evolution is far from obvious and, hence, traditional social Darwinism fails. There is another way to do things. This is to argue that the search for justification is mistaken. Ethics just is. It is an adaptation for humans living socially and has exactly the same status as other adaptations, like hands and teeth and genitalia. As such, ethics is something with no standing beyond what it is.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 17 Article 2 Issue 2 Symposium on Religion in the Public Square 1-1-2012 Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Kent Greenwalt, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 321 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS IDEAS: EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN KENT GREENAWALT* I. INTRODUCTION The enduring conflict between evolutionary theorists and creationists has focused on America's public schools. If these schools had no need to teach about the origins of life, each side might content itself with promoting its favored worldview and declaring its opponents narrow-minded and dogmatic. But edu- cators have to decide what to teach, and because the Supreme Court has declared that public schools may not teach religious propositions as true, the First Amendment is crucially implicated. On close examination, many of the controversial constitu- tional issues turn out to be relatively straightforward, but others, posed mainly by the way schools teach evolution and by what they say about "intelligent design" theory, push us to deep questions about the nature of science courses and what counts as teaching religious propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSCIOUSNESS 'THE Sour
    ( Fall 1995 Vol.15, No.4 HMMM... CONSCIOUSNESS 'THE sour. ABE ARTIFICIAL IIITELLIGENCE Exclusive Interviews with Cognitive Scientists Patricia Smith Churchland and Daniel C. Dennett BERTRAND RUSSELL Also: The Disneyfication of America Situation Ethics in Medicine 74957 Reactionar Black Nationalism FALL 1995, VOL. 15, NO. 4 ISSN 0272-0701 !ee WTI : Contents Editor: Paul Kurtz Executive Editor: Timothy J. Madigan Managing Editor: Andrea Szalanski 3 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Senior Editors: Vern Bullough, Thomas W. Flynn, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Gerald Larue, Gordon Stein 5 EDITORIALS Contributing Editors: Robert S. Alley, Joe E. Barnhart, David Berman, Notes from the Editor: Pro Ecclesia et Commercia, Paul Kurtz I H. James Birx, Jo Ann Boydston, Bonnie Bullough, Reactionary Black Nationalism: Authoritarianism in the Name of Paul Edwards, Albert Ellis, Roy P. Fairfield, Charles W. Faulkner, Antony Flew, Levi Fragell, Adolf Freedom, Norm R. Allen, Jr. / The Founding Fathers Were Not Grünbaum, Marvin Kohl, Jean Kotkin, Thelma Lavine, Tibor Machan, Ronald A. Lindsay, Michael Christian, Steven Morris I Religious Right to Bolt GOP?, Skipp Martin, Delos B. McKown, Lee Nisbet, John Novak, Porteous I Humanist Potpourri, Warren Allen Smith Skipp Porteous, Howard Radest, Robert Rimmer, Michael Rockier, Svetozar Stojanovic, Thomas Szasz, Roh Tielman 16 NEWS AND VIEWS V. M. Torkunde, Richard Taylor, Associate Editors: Molleen Matsumura, Lois Porter 19 CONSCIOUSNESS REVISITED Editorial Associates: 19 FI Interview: A Conversation with Daniel Dennett Doris Doyle, Thomas Franczyk, Roger Greeley, James Martin-Diaz, Steven L. Mitchell, Warren 22 FI Interview: The Neurophilosophy of Patricia Smith Churchland Allen Smith 25 Neurological Bases of Modern Humanism José Delgado Cartoonist: Don Addis 29 Revisiting 'New Conceptions of the Mind' Noel W Smith CODESH.
    [Show full text]
  • Organism and Mechanism
    ORGANISM AND MECHANISM A Critique of Mechanistic Thinking in Biology Submitted by Daniel James Nicholson to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy In September 2010 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. ABSTRACT In this thesis I present a critical examination of the role played by mechanistic ideas in shaping our understanding of living systems. I draw on a combination of historical, philosophical, and scientific resources to uncover a number of problems which I take to result from the adoption of mechanistic thinking in biology. I provide an analysis of the historical development of the conflict between mechanistic and vitalistic conceptions of life since the seventeenth century, and I argue that the basic terms of this conflict remain central to current disputes over the nature of the organism as well as the question of how far the theories, concepts, and methods of physics, chemistry, and engineering can ultimately take us in the explanation of life. I offer a detailed critique of the machine conception of the organism, which constitutes the central unifying idea of mechanistic biology. I argue that this notion, despite its undeniable heuristic value, is fundamentally inadequate as a theory of the organism due to a number of basic differences between organisms and machines.
    [Show full text]
  • By Michael Ruse Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, 296 Pp., $27.50
    "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?" by Michael Ruse Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, 296 pp., $27.50 Unedited version of review published in: Chemical & Engineering News, 1999, 77 (9 August), 40-1. The title of this book suggests a rather ambitious undertaking, and on that score we are certainly not disappointed. Philosopher and zoologist Michael Ruse takes note of the ongoing debates known as the “Science Wars” and identifies, as the central issue, a fundamental controversy about the nature of science. Namely, is science objective knowledge about the real world? Or is it a subjective reflection of our culture? He then sets himself the goal of resolving this controversy by exploring the history of evolutionary biology. Ruse’s strategy is to distinguish between, and assess the relative influence of, two classes of values that drive the scientist: epistemic and nonepistemic. Among the former are the norms and criteria that philosophers offer as characteristic of science, such as consistency and coherence, predictive power, and fertility; while the latter include religious and cultural beliefs, desire for rewards and status, etc. Ruse examines ten notable figures in the development of evolution as a respectable scientific field, some historical — Erasmus and Charles Darwin, Julian Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky — and some contemporary — Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Edward O. Wilson, Geoffrey Parker, and (recently deceased) J. John Sepkoski. For each case, he attempts to tease apart the different motivations and methodologies that underlie their respective contributions. By the end, Ruse believes he has amassed evidence for several conclusions. First, epistemic values unquestionably play an important role, and furthermore, one whose importance increases over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Ruse, DARWINISM and ITS DISCONTENTS
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 26 Issue 4 Article 11 10-1-2009 Michael Ruse, DARWINISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS Angus Menuge Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Menuge, Angus (2009) "Michael Ruse, DARWINISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 26 : Iss. 4 , Article 11. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil200926444 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol26/iss4/11 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 464 Faith and Philosophy Darwinism and its Discontents, by Michael Ruse. Cambridge University Press, 2006. 290 pages + references + index. Cloth $30.00. ANGUS MENUGE, Concordia University Wisconsin In an earlier work—Can a Darwinian be a Christian?—Ruse argued that someone fully committed to Darwinism could consistently embrace much of the Christian faith. While Ruse expected a mixed response, he was sur- prised that some agreed with his thesis but could not see “how any right- thinking person could be a Darwinian” (p. ix). Ruse presents the current volume as a “prequel” to the earlier work, giving the strongest possible reasons to embrace a thoroughgoing Darwinism. By “thoroughgoing,” I mean that Ruse, like Daniel Dennett, is a reductionist philosopher who believes that the Darwinian perspective is a universal acid, transforming our understanding of everything.
    [Show full text]
  • RELIGION and SCIENCE: Two Peas in a Pod Or Fruits of Different Vines?1
    d RELIGION AND SCIENCE: Two Peas in a Pod or 1 Fruits of Different Vines? James W. Dow This essay deals with the difference between religion and sci­ ence. Émile Durkheim and other nineteenth century social philosophers thought that science was a child of religion and that the two belonged to the same family of collective repre­ sentations. I would like to offer an opposing opinion from the point of view of cultural anthropology. The more you look at religion and science, the more it appears that science is differ­ ent from religion. Science is something new, but religion is as old as the hills. Religion is built into the human brain, but sci­ ence is not. Yet, scientific ideas without question can be called beliefs when they are acquired from others. Like religion, sci­ ence offers a model of reality developed by a cultural group. When scientific ideas are acquired by imitation from the group, they seem to be similar to religious beliefs. However, there is a big difference in the way that the ideas are con­ structed before they are shared by the group. Cultures can pro­ duce various systems of knowledge each with their different ideas of what it true. This essay elaborates the position stated by Stephen J. Gould (1997): religion and science are different systems of knowledge. 1 An earlier version was presented at the Department of Sociology and An­ thropology Brown­Bag Series, Oakland University, on March 30, 2006 131 Often regarded as the founder of sociology, Émile Durkheim (1912) promoted the idea that religion and sci­ ence were similar.
    [Show full text]
  • Bertrand Russell Society Fall 2014
    The Bertrand Russell Society Fall 2014 Bulletin Inside this issue … Our columnists; Feature articles by Doubleday, Klement, Pigden, Turcon, and Berumen; And much more. Number 150 ISSN 1547-0334 Information for New and Renewing Members embership in the Society is $45 per year for individuals and $25 for students and those with limited incomes. Add $10.00 for cou- ples. A lifetime membership is $1,000. In addition to the BRS Bulletin, membership includes a subscription to the scholarly journal, M Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies (published semi-annually by McMaster University), as well as other Society privi- leges, such as participation in the on-line BRS Forum, the BRS email list, access to a host of Russell-related resources, and eligibility to at- tend the Annual Meeting. Renewal dues should be paid by or on January 1st of each year. One’s membership status can be determined by going to russell.mcmaster.ca/brsmembers.htm. There one will also find convenient links to join or renew via PayPal and our information form. New and renewing members can also send a check or money order via traditional post to the treasurer (make it out to The Bertrand Russell Society). Send it to Michael Berumen, Treasurer, Bertrand Russell Society, 37155 Dickerson Run, Windsor, CO 80550. If a new member, please tell us a little about yourself beyond just your name (interests in Russell, profession, etc.). Include your postal address and email address, as well as your member status (i.e., regular, couple, student, limited income). If a renewing member, please let us know of any relevant changes in your contact information.
    [Show full text]