Evolution - the secular religion

[August]

Here is an e-mail exchange between Micheal Ruse, the expert witness in recent ID vs evo court cases, and Daniel Dennett, an author who recently published a book claiming that evolution is responsible for everything.

A few points to note:
1. Ruse's admission that evolution functions as a secular religion.
2. The clear admission that evolution stands in direct contrast with Christianity, and that Christianity's "ideas" should be studied so that they can be countered.
3. The assertion from Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocal supporters of evoluton, that Chrisitianity is a "force of evil".
4. Ruse's assertion that all can be explained from the genes.

We can discuss conclusions in follow-on messages.

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dennett, Daniel C.
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:57 PM
To: Michael Ruse
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Michael,

I'll wait before replying to you. I doubt that you mean all the things you say here. Think it over.

Dan

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Michael Ruse
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:29 PM
To: Dennett, Daniel C.
Subject: RE: your letter

Now don't be grumpy — “You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with.” — I am a full professor with tenure at a university known chiefly for its prowess on the football field, living out my retirement years in the sunshine — I have no reputation to preserve, and frankly can say and do whatever the f**k I want to without sinking further.

Now, for the record.

I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect — in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don't buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything — especially including ethics — in the language of genes. I stick to this and my next book — which incidentally starts by quoting you approvingly on the world importance of selection — goes after the lot — Marxists, constructivists, feminists, creationists, philosophers, you name it.

Look it up —

It is true that I condemn or at least want to point to evolutionism, which I do think functions as a secular religion — but never have I said that Darwinian evolutionary theory is anything but a genuine theory — I am the guy who stood up in Arkansas and said this when all of the fancy philosophers would not have any part in the fight, and who got slammed afterwards by Larry Laudan, Ernan McMullin, Philip Kitcher, and others, because of my stand.

Second, I have no more belief than either you or Dawkins — I call myself a sceptic because I think that atheism is unprovable, but I don't believe in the trinity or whatever — and have never concealed this, especially not to the Templeton people, to whom one might think I would suck up.

Third, I would defend to the death the right of you and Richard Dawkins to say what you like — I would print those bloody cartoons, believe me — if Richard gets caught on that sh*t Tony Blair's laws to placate Muslims, the first thousand dollars to his defence fund will come from me.

Fourth, I thought your new book is really bad and not worthy of you — I agree that the Times review was loaded (although funny) — I tried in my review in Nature to express my disapproval but in a way that left us both with respect.

Fifth, I think that you and Richard are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design — we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms — what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues — neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas — it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims — more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.

Ok, enough preaching for a Sunday — I really like you and Richard, but my liking for you and respect for what you two have done matters not a bit with respect to what I think that I, Michael Ruse, should do — I would be ashamed of myself if I thought and acted otherwise.

Michael

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dennett, Daniel C.
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:34 PM
To: Michael Ruse
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Michael,

Funny you should ask. They didn't publish my/our letter, and today you can see why. The ugly review from Wieseltier. I attach my response, which they WILL publish (but not till March). I don't think it's a coincidence. I think the NYTBR is under the spell of the Darwin dreaders. I'm afraid you are being enlisted on the side of the forces of darkness. You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with. As you will see, I do lump your coinage in with 'reductionism” and “scientism” etc. and think you are doing a disservice to the cause of taking science seriously. Are you among the Wieseltiers? I'd like to think not, but you are certainly being pulled in by them.

Best wishes,

Dan

=-=-=-=-=-
From: Michael Ruse
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:03 PM
To: Dennett, Daniel C.
Cc: 'Michael Fisher'
Subject: your letter

Dear Dan:

Each Sunday I turn with fear and trembling to the letters page of the New York Times Book Review, searching for the scathing letter that you and Pinker penned about my inadequacies. Each Sunday, with my name unmentioned, I then turn with relief to the Week in Review to read instead about the inadequacies of others. Are you flying under the radar of the editors of that particular organ?

Ever yours in Charles Darwin,

Michael

[Jac3510]

Interesting, August. Where did you get this?

Now, for some good ol' fashioned, baseless speculations!

If this exchange can be taken as any indicator, it seems the evo. community is being hijacked by the "evolutionismists." By that, I mean those people for whom the theory is their religion, i.e., Dawkins and Dennett. Sagan, I think it was, made a pretty interesting, if not damaging, claim when he said that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (or was that Dawkins?). For these people, their very philosophy of life is built on Darwinian principles. It governs everything! As has been said recently, it's rather like God.

I mention hijacking, and this is why. There are certainly a number of people who think like Dawkins, but probably a great many more aren't particularly philosophical about it. How many Christians, for instance, accept evolution? Secondly, while it is true that among academia the acceptance of God is far less common than in "the real world" (but then again, so is Marxism), it is also true that pure academia does not represent the sum total of evolution studies.

For example, suppose you were to come to America for the first time. You visit five major university campuses and you poll the professors about their beliefs concerning politics. If you considered this poll to be representation of the American public (after all, aren't they teaching us?), you would come to the conclusion that better than 90% of us are democratic, and within that 90%, the cast majority are hardline Marxists. Needless to say, this is, in now way, a true reflection of the world. In modern politics, the Democratic party has been hijacked by the extreme leftists . . . the Moores, Kerrys, Kennedys, Clintons, Reids, etc. Against this, you have a large number of people who are Democrats that are or would be horrified by some of these ideas. They just aren't Republican!

The point is that I think the same might be true for the evolution camp. It's been taken over by these intellectual elites, and they've painted the picture the way they wanted it. They can, because they are the ones who write the books, run the networks, and write the book reviews. In other words, they've become the spokesmen for the side, and they are just espousing their pseudo-religion. The rest of the community, which I would wager to be the majority, don't hold to their ideology, as I think Ruse seems to be a good example of.

Now, if any of this is true, then this polarization could have some interesting effects. On one hand, when it finally becomes obvious what is going on, ID will get a huge advantage. If you can't promote one religion, then you can't promote another, so the argument will go. If ID is religiously motivated, how much more is evolutionism religiously motivated? On the other hand, if the scientific community realizes that they are being mirepresented (if indeed they are), they may remove these men, resulting in the "death" of "evolutionism." ID would again get an audience, but here, I think we are in a worse state. Atheism is easy to discount. Agnosticism is next to impossible. These people would be willing to engage with Christian thought, and they probably would do so very fairly. But there would still be a bias to disbelieve, and I think the entire movement might find itself subverted.

In the end, perhaps Dawkins is our greatest ally?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Dawkins is the devil.

[Jac3510]

Haha. We actually use The Blind Watchmaker in our Creationism class here at the seminary as a textbook. He just makes it WAY too easy reject evolution in general . . .

BGood, do you see a polarization in the evo. community?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Haha. We actually use The Blind Watchmaker in our Creationism class here at the seminary as a textbook. He just makes it WAY too easy reject evolution in general . . .

BGood, do you see a polarization in the evo. community?

There always has been, scientific discussions at the conferences always get heated, between several opposing camps. Especially between experimental and theoretical circles.

There is also sometimes disputes between those who study genetic evidence and those who do analysis in the field on populations.

The fundamentals may be in place but the way the mechanisms work for specific pathways is not set in stone.

[sandy_mcd]

Where did you get this? "intellectual elites"

Demski has it on his site (and has permission to post it): http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.ph ... 4#more-844.
I agree with most of the rest you say; that atheists are using evolution to attack religion. Despite their vocal stridency, I think they do not represent the majority.
I do have to question your pejorative use of "intellectual elite". Personally I in general have more respect for the opinions of those who are smart and think rationally than of those who are not as bright and are swayed by their gut or a 15 second news bite. Why do so many people feel otherwise? The culmination being of course ...

intellectual
1. Of or relating to the intellect.
2. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
1. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See synonyms at intelligent.
2. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

elite
1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement).
2. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

[aa118816]

Sandy,

In general I agree with you, but the term intellectual elite is applicable to certain characters like Dennet and Dawkins. For instance, Dennett says that all people that believe in Christianity should be placed in cages and studied. He calls all of his little minions "brights". It sounds like he is a pre-school teacher, but specifically states that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot and not worthy of life outside of a cage. Dennett is not funny, but downright despicable.

Dawkins is the best thing that has happened to Christians because he is so over the top. He is a brilliant writer and a wonderful lyricist, but a failure to his cause. He is the Pat Robertson of secularists.

Regards
Dan

[Wall-dog]

Daniel Dennett, an author who recently published a book claiming that evolution is responsible for everything.

Can we use evolution to explain those caricatures of Muhammad?

Sorry - couldn't resist!!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Dawkins is the best thing that has happened to Christians because he is so over the top. He is a brilliant writer and a wonderful lyricist, but a failure to his cause. He is the Pat Robertson of secularists.

Dawkins:Christians::Howard_Dean:Republicans

That is all

[Jac3510]

Sandy:

First, I didn't really intend for the term to be perjorative, although I can see how you could get that. These people are, for the most part, actually the elite among academia.

Now, let me proceed here carefully . . . I do put more stock in what an educated person has to say. All other things being equal, these people are typically analytical and very concerned with accuracy. Usually, their logical skills are better than average. Are you familiar with Howard Garder's theory of multiple intelligences? The intellectual elite is usually going to be particularly gifted in linguistic and/or logical areas. As a result, in general, when they analyze a subject, they have a tendancy to be on track. This is even more true when they speak on their particular area of expertise!

With that said, I put virtually no stock in what the intellectual elite has to say when comes to almost anything philosophical, even those who are in that field. This would be the exception. The reason is that our presuppositions determine the manner in which we examine a subject. In philosophy, theology, or even sociology for that matter, presuppositions are everything. The intellectual elite just can't cope with that. It's not his or her gift. However, because it is an area where intellegent people speak, they have, by nature, a tendancy to think they have the answers on this. And why not? They are naturally analytical. They usually have the right answers, or at least present very solid cases.

In other words, these people reason very well from their presuppositions, but they do a terrible job with their presuppositions. There are, of course, exceptions to all of this, but I'm speaking in very broad generalities.

According to Gardner, this actually an entire intelligence type that deals with this issue . . . multiple ones, as it is. Primarily, a persons religious/philosphical intelligence will most affect one's ability to reason in this area (I believe he labels it "existential intelligence"). Secondarily, intrapersonal intelligence will have a large impact here, because that deals with one's ability to deal with one's own self.

So, God bless those guys who chair department heads and lead research and all of that. But, when it comes to the philosophical implications of what they are studying, I wouldn't trust them very much at all!

Now, this is doubly true in Christian theology. Realizing these people have a fallen nature, we agree with Paul who said, "Professing to be wise, they became fools." There you have it . . . in seven words, he made the same point that I just made in seven paragraphs!

That's why I like engineers . . . practical intellects. I'd trust them far more

God bless

fakeedit: I'm glad, but surprised, that we all agree on Dawkins. I wonder if the rest of the evolution community feels the same way . . . I'm starting to think my speculations may be in the right ballpark!

[sandy_mcd]

It is true that I condemn or at least want to point to evolutionism, which I do think functions as a secular religion — but never have I said that Darwinian evolutionary theory is anything but a genuine theory

It sounds as though Ruse is differentiating "evolutionism" from "evolutionary theory"; the former being all the philosophical baggage which may be attached to a belief in the latter which is scientific.

it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims — more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.

By "in a fight" I think Ruse means against doubters of evolution as a scientific theory, not against Christianity. By "we need to make allies" I think Ruse means, at least in part, Christians who are comfortable with evolution, as well as non-Christians who don't like the tone of some of the atheistic proponents of evolution.

2. The clear admission that evolution stands in direct contrast with Christianity, and that Christianity's "ideas" should be studied so that they can be countered.

I obviously don't read this at all the way August does. I just don't see his "clear admission" of "direct contrast" and the idea of "counter"ing Christianity.

A quick web search reveals http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/ ... nadbac.htm
Title: Can a Darwinian be a Christian ?
Author: Michael Ruse

From the Reviews:

* "Contrasts there are, but the alleged contradictions, Ruse argues, are misconceptions. Natural selection and divine providence are not to be opposed; they are explanations that take place at different conceptual levels (.....) The virtue of Ruse's book is that, one by one, he takes up all the serious questions that Darwinism can pose to the Christian worldview and systematically answers them." - David S. Toolan, America

* "Michael Ruse's book is an astonishing contribution to this literature. It astonishes because of the bravado of its thesis. Instead of espousing Gould's tame view that religion and science are distinct but complementary, Ruse, a philosopher and historian of science, maintains that at least one form of science (Darwinism) and one form of religion (Christianity) are mutually reinforcing." - Jerry Coyne, London Review of Books

* "(W)hat gets compromised when Ruse attempts to build this conciliatory case is his own fidelity to the essential features of Darwinism." - Frederick C. Crews, The New York Review of Books

* "By concentrated argument around a number of themes -- the origin of life, the soul, design, miracles, pain, ethics, social Darwinism etc -- he manages to throw real light on the complexity of the issues, while suggesting how different standpoints might be re- conciled. Ruse's grasp of the subject, clarity of exposition, fair-mindedness and light touch make it a thoroughly stimulating exercise." - John Habgood, Times Literary Supplement

[Wall-dog]

Sandy,

The problem is that the theory of evolution removes the need for God from the origin of species. You can believe in God and particularly so when you have other very rational reasons to do so such as cosmology. But Darwin was a naturalist and evolution is a naturalist theory. Naturalism is a philosophy that starts with 'all things must have natural causes.' Naturalism removes God right from the start. It is an athiest philosophy. I mean, you could believe in God and still be a naturalist, but what would be the point of believing in God if you don't think He caused anything? Naturalism may not try to eliminate God but it does try to eliminate the need for Him and as such it is at odds with religion. Keep in mind that Christianity makes specific claims about things God did in the natural world. Because of this Christianity is at odds with naturalism.

But what is the difference between 'Evolutionism' and 'Evolution Theory?'

You could say that scientific evolution theory is the study of evolution without assumptions on where it took place. Nobody disputes it at the species level. Evolutinsim is the philosophy of evolution as the cause for everything regardless of what anything - including scientific discovery - might say. If that is accurate, then Ruse would be open to alternative theories as long as they don't encroach upon evolution where it can be observed and as long as they don't claim that evolution could not have occurred at levels where it can be implied into the fossil record. And all of us believe in evolution at some level.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

It sounds as though Ruse is differentiating "evolutionism" from "evolutionary theory"; the former being all the philosophical baggage which may be attached to a belief in the latter which is scientific

How can one detach a theory from the philosophy behind it?

[August]

Let me start with this, Sandy may be right that I was wrong in my initial reading. If that turns out to be the case, I have no problem apologizing for misrepresenting. All I ask is that you follow along with my line of reasoning, and let's discuss it further.

Ruse is saying that there is no need for a gap between evolution (the "science") and Christianity, and that Christianity must be engaged with to show that. He does however also say that evolutionism is acting like a secular religion. What I have not seen explained from him in a satisfactory manner is the seperation between evolution and evolutionism. If you believe in evolution, you are an evolutionist. Otherwise, I can argue that I believe in creation, but that is not creationism, and I'm not a creationist. I would encourage all of you go and look up these words in any dictionary, and see for yourself.

The reason he has to come up with that rather artificial seperation is that despite all his assertions to the contrary, he says this:

I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect — in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don't buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything — especially including ethics — in the language of genes.

Now, how on earth can you argue from the perspective that you put everything down to genes, including ethics, a decidedly metaphysical area, and still argue that there is no need for compromizing one of evolution and Christianity? I would argue, and this is where I may be wrong, that Ruse is purposely blurring the message when he appeals for compatibility, and thus his comments about engaging with Christianity.

Ruse also says this:

Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.

Certainly, I think that philosophers like myself have been much more sensitized to these things, over the last ten years, by trends and winds and whatever the right metaphor is, in the philosophy of science. That we've become aware, thanks to Marxists and to feminists, criticisms -- the criticisms of historians and sociologists and others -- that science is a much more idealistic, in the a priori sense, enterprise, than one would have got from reading the logical positivists, or even the great philosophers. The people like Popper and Hempel and Nagel, of the 1950s and 1960s, which was when my generation entered the field and started to grow up.

Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary theory, and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely by the talk just before me, it's certainly been the case that evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion. http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

Since the time of that talk, he has gone out of his way on the one hand to try and make the case that Sandy and Bgood has been making, that evolution is merely a scientific undertaking, and that the metaphysical implications has nothing to do with the science itself, even though it exists. However, as he admits here, it is virtually impossible to seperate the two, the point that I have been making in our discussions. Furthermore, the metaphysical underpinnings of evolution are secular in nature, not theistic.

The approach he took is in itself not really working. His arguments in favor of whether a Darwinian can be Christian rest upon the philosophical seperation of the two, which by his own admission above is hard to do, and must not be found terribly convincing by the Darwinians out there, since over 95% of biologists in the National Academy of Science are atheists. The reason they don't find it convincing is demonstrated in one of the reviews of that specific book Sandy quoted, he compromises on the evolutionary side. This has been my argument all along, that for you to make Christianity and evolution compatible, one of the sides must compromise. Ruse is losing ground in the evolutionary community for even suggesting that there can be a compromise, as Dennett points out.

I have plenty more to say on the topic, but this is already long.