As Michael Ruse remarked when he gave me permission to quote the following exchange between him and Daniel Dennett: “feel free to quote — after all, I am in deep sh** already!!!”
HIGHLIGHT OF THE EXCHANGE: “I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] 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.”
=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dennett, Daniel C.
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:57 PM
To: Michael Ruse
Subject: RE: your letterDear 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 letterNow 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.
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 letterDear Michael,
Funny you should ask. They didn’t publish my/our letter, and today you can see why. The ugly review from Wieseltier [[Mentioned on this blog here — WmAD]]. 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 letterDear 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