Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ruse on Dawkins’ Delusion

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” (heavily edited)

“God is getting a bit of a bashing these days. Above all, there is the smash-hit best seller The God Delusion, by the brilliant science writer Richard Dawkins. Why this sudden enthusiasm for atheism? The new skeptics are writing brilliant works, bringing reason and evidence to bear on the God question, and showing in altogether new ways why religion is false and dangerous to boot.

Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). Dawkins is entirely ignorant of the fact that no believer – has ever thought that arguments are the best support for belief. John Henry Newman wrote: “I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design.”

Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth. Does he honestly think that no philosopher or theologian has ever thought of or worried about the infinite regress of the cosmological argument?

One person who comes in for withering scorn in The God Delusion is me. Even though I am not a Christian, I nevertheless think that one can be a Christian with integrity and that Darwinism does not in itself preclude Christianity. In fighting fundamentalism – from scientific creationism to intelligent design theory – one should be willing to work with liberal Christians.

Suppose it is true – that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? Perhaps, given the U.S. Constitution, the creationists are right and Darwinism should be excluded. ”

MICHAEL RUSE   ISIS volume 98, Issue 4, Page 814–816, Dec 2007

Comments
-----Jerry: "I do not believe that there are many or any TE’s who accept your definition of Darwinism. That is the problem. You impose a definition they won’t accept. Now most evolutionary biologist and people like Dawkins will accept your definition but not everyone who believes that life unfolded according to variation and natural selection and in a gradualistic manner." Jerry, an organism can "unfold" only if it was programmed to do so. If it adapts according to random variation and natural selection, then it is not unfolding. Incredibly, Christian Darwinists insist that there was a plan for there to be no plan. Don't you see that? They are pushing pure contingency. You can't turn telelogy on, off, and back on again. That is why Miller first wrote in his textbooks that evolution is an unguided process. When he got caught, he changed the word to "guided." For all I know, he has changed it back again. Stephen Barr insists that the words "guided" or "unguided" are meaningless. How convenient for him. I guess he means that it is sort of guided and sort of non-guided. He doesn't know what he means except that he believes Darwin.StephenB
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
StephenB, I do not believe that there are many or any TE's who accept your definition of Darwinism. That is the problem. You impose a definition they won't accept. Now most evolutionary biologist and people like Dawkins will accept your definition but not everyone who believes that life unfolded according to variation and natural selection and in a gradualistic manner.jerry
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan (me to for 30 years) - check your fondness for the Newman quote with Rom. 1:20 along with StephenB above & bililiad. I suspect you see design in Isaiah 53. Superspiritualism is deceptive and God, yes THE GOD has given us plain and recognizable RECORDS/Revelations in Creation and His Word...don't you think?alan
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how one reconciles Theism (purposeful, mindful, creator) with Darwinism (purposeless, mindlesss process). According to the Christian religion, God manifests himself in nature through design; according to Darwinist ideology, design is an illusion. According to true TE (Christian evolution), evolution unfolds with purpose from the inside according to a pre-ordained plan; according to false TE (Christian Darwinism) creation adapts without purpose from the outside accordinng to the demands of the environment.StephenB
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? It's something I always wondered about. The education I got was seriously materialist (and anti-religious) and I count myself lucky for having survived it.tribune7
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Ruse is my kinda guy. I love the Newman quote.larrynormanfan
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
We'd have more time for Biology if we didn't have to annotate a just-so story to every biological fact.Latemarch
February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply