Recently, Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse spoke on this theme at the Oxford Brookes Philosophy Public Lectures:
Christianity and Darwinism have very different understandings of the nature and causes of war. However, beneath the surfaces, there are some surprising similarities, not the least a debt to Saint Augustine’s claims about original sin. This talk uncovers these and other pertinent facts, arguing that we are not dealing with a religion versus science debate but more a religion versus religion debate.
Michael Ruse is Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. More.
The lecture follows on his 2016 book, Darwinism as Religion.
Ruse has always been honest about that. For example, in 2000, he wrote:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”– Ruse, M., “How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics”, National Post,pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)
And he has made the same point many times.
So one wonders how it comes about that Ken Miller claims in Scientific American that the very term “Darwinism” is a “scientific slur.” Can he really know nothing of Ruse’s widely known work? Or is this another instance of post-modernism seeping into science, where background knowledge of the facts actually doesn’t matter much? Miller likely has nothing to feel embarrassed about at Scientific American.
See also: Is the term Darwinism a “scientific slur”?
Physics needs Darwin? Ken Miller should hear this
I’m not wondering. I’d say that Miller is correct about it being a slur.
When I post a comment at UD, I am often accused of being a Darwinist, even though I am not a Darwinist. That tends to make it look as if ID proponents and creationists are using the term as a slur.
Neil,
It is it is total BS. Total BS. That is why anyone would even think it was a slur
But Dawkins doesn’t think it is a slur.
Neil @ 1:
“Evolution” is such an umbrella branding term that includes any variation in the genome…or even none (“stasis”). So, even young-Earth creationists are evolutionists in many senses.
“Believer in common descent” is not only clumsy, but doesn’t actually distinguish ID/creationists from evolutionists, because we have plenty of folks here that are both.
Not all unguided evolutionists self identify as Darwinist; though all other unguided systems are either references to properties of the modern synthesis or depend on it, so it works.
But, if it’s as difficult to properly produce a non-offensive term to identify unguided evolutionists as it is to find the right pronoun for a genderfluid gender theorist, blame evolutionary biology. It’s messy and they like it that way.
Calling someone a Darwinist is not a slur, it just means they believe (have faith) that Darwinian mechanisms are the cause of speciation. To be sure, the term has become less favorable in the minds of many, but that alone doesn’t make it a slur.
Neil, I guess anything can evolve into slur but there are differences between those who believe that evolution of some type occurs, think common descent is the best explanation but otherwise keep an open mind, and hold it as dogma that all must accept.
Darwinist is an honest label for the latter category and it is a faith not a science. That implication is what I think really bothers most of those who are called it.
Neil, since you claim not to be a Darwinist, would you please state what you are? It’s an honest question. I don’t know what you believe.
Speaking of religion, the other religion mentioned here is often maligned by the mere mention of its adherents. Christian! If you don’t think so, go look up which is the most persecuted group in the world. Hint: it’s not Darwinists.
And yet, those Christians, those who really are, and who know they are being slurred, see the intended slur very differently. They see it as a blessing, for they are counted as worthy by the Master to follow in his footsteps.
It helps to grow think skin. And a gentle heart.
Darwinism is a religion. Moreover, Darwinism is itself, (contrary to the false ‘warfare’ narrative between science and Christianity that is promulgated by Darwinists), found to be a rabidly unscientific religion.
It turns out that when Atheistic materialists, i.e. Darwinists, came along and rejected God as the basis for all of reality, (as the Christian founders of modern science had originally envisioned), that they ended up rejecting reality itself. In other words, Darwinists, since they have rejected the Mind of God as the basis for all of reality, end up living in a world of fantasy and illusion that makes Alice in Wonderland seem mild in comparison.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’, who has the illusion of free will, who has unreliable beliefs about reality, who has illusory perceptions of reality, who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection, so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design, and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
Here are a few references that solidify each of those claims against the religion of Atheistic Materialism and/or Darwinism.
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe he is on the terra firma of science, the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic worldview and/or religion, it is found that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would, in fact, be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science than Darwinian evolution and/or Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be.
Science, and Scientists, should definitely stick with the Theistic worldview that brought them to the dance, i.e. Christian Theism!
My view is that evolution is driven by the behavior of biological organisms (and population). I see natural selection as mainly a statistical effect.
Neil:
Evolution driven by behavior cannot account for the diversity of life starting from populations of prokaryotes. Perhaps if the original diversity was close to the present diversity that would do it.
The term Darwinist and Darwinism are not, of themselves, slurs, even though they do not accurately describe modern evolutionary theory. But when used on this site, they often are used as slurs. As are terms such as a/mat, Progressive and Liberal. For example, in just the first few months of this year, four OP titles have included the word Progressive. These terms are often used in a derogatory context, often linked to a decline in civilization, declining morality, reduction in freedoms, etc.
But before you jump all over me, the other side is no better. They use terms such as Neo-Con, Conservative, Republican and Christian Right in a derogatory context, akin to “mouth breathing knuckle draggers” and Luddites.
Personally, I think that the use of any of these terms in a derogatory fashion is just childish. I try not to use them (not always successfully).
Allan:
That’s your opinion. To me it’s just a description of what someone believes, like a religious denomination.
That said, Allan’s other socks have no problem using derogatory language aimed at people that expose it for what it is
And Allan, have your other sock, William Spearshake, look up Epicurus. Ignorance is not an argument
I count reproduction as a behavior.
Neil:
OK. My point still stands. Bacteria reproduction brings on more bacteria. It doesn’t produce eukaryotes.
Humans reproduce more humans. Cats reproduce more cats:
Neil Rickert @ 13:
So, not simply a Darwinist. But your belief is still inclusive of and stands on the modern synthesis.
Strikes me as more “Lamarckian” than “Darwinian”. Maybe a combination of the two?