Michael Ruse: Darwinist talks with Points about ID and evolution in the classroom
03:36 PM CST on Sunday, January 29, 2006
Do you think there is anything at all to the intelligent design argument from irreducible complexity?
No. I think it’s “creationism lite” tarted up to look like science to get around the constitutional separation of church and state.
Leading ID theorists say that all they want to do is teach science, not philosophy or theology. Do you take them at their word?
Not really, but the point is, I just don’t think you can teach ID just as science. I don’t think it is science. It would be like saying, “All I want to do is look at naked women. There’s nothing to do with sex about it, understand?” Yeah, right.
On the other hand, your fellow Darwinians argue that they, too, only want to teach science – but you say that there is a religious element in what many of them do. Explain.
I don’t think there’s any question about that. 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.
What is “evolutionism”?
As I’ve defined it, 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.
Do you think that the Dover ruling will have settled the issue of teaching ID in public schools?
I doubt it very much. Obviously it’s a big setback for the ID people. That’s why I think the Discovery Institute people tried to get out of the way as soon as they could, especially because this judge was not a wimpy lefto. Besides, you live in the South. You know perfectly well that a ruling in Pennsylvania ain’t gonna stop Texas.
Personally, I think the bigger threat is when these things go up to the Supreme Court. I think what’s going to happen is the Supreme Court is going to start arguing that the separation of church and state doesn’t have to go as far as before. Those who are prepared to overturn Roe vs. Wade are not going to stop at keeping ID out of the classroom.
What should Darwinians do to make a more persuasive case in the political struggle with ID proponents?
More scientists should get involved in this debate. There’s a very strong negative force among young scientists not to get involved in the public domain. If you’re trying to get tenure, you don’t spend your summer fighting ID. Many people are not good at public involvement, but I’d like to see more of it.
I see evolution and creation as very much the top end of the iceberg. It’s a litmus test of this whole red-blue division in America. I’d like to see the left, the Democrats or whatever we call ourselves, be more open to people’s concerns. I mean, it’s not helpful, and certainly not in America, when Richard Dawkins says all religion is evil. We have got to talk about moral values. We people of the left, we people of the Enlightenment, if you like, have got to start talking about broader issues. I would like to see science teaching, including the teaching of evolution, to be part of this, rather than something we isolate.
Michael Ruse, the author of “The Evolution-Creation Struggle,” teaches history and philosophy of science at Florida State University in Tallahassee. His e-mail address is mruse+@mailer.fsu.edu.