Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 3, 2009

Global Warming, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Ruse has a piece in Forbes magazine about the recent hype over the Darwinius masillae fossil. I’m not sure what a business magazine finds interesting about the 47-million-year-old primate fossil, but I’m sure it isn’t interested in promoting the religion that underwrites the theory of evolution. Like most evolutionists Ruse doesn’t hide his theological convictions. I once debated Ruse but it was hardly a debate. I explained that evolutionists mandate naturalism for religious reasons such as the problem of evil, and Ruse argued that evolution is mandated for religious reasons such as the problem of evil. Such convictions provide evolutionists with a metaphysical certainty that evolution is true.

Read more here.

Comments

...why is it then, that every time some new discovery pops us, such as cute little Ida, the Darwinists go into a public relations tizzy proclaiming the “missing link” has been found...
They aren't. The media is. The media is sensationalistic by nature. Here is the conclusion of the scientific paper: "Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past." Read the science, not the newspapers.SingBlueSilver_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Michael Ruse writes (quoted by Cornelius Hunter on his blog referenced above):
Thanks to the Origin and to the huge amount of research done in the subsequent century and a half, we have massive evidence–from paleontology, biogeography, anatomy, embryology and every other branch of biology–putting the fact that organisms evolved well beyond reasonable doubt. This is as certain as that the Earth goes around the sun or that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. Other than the aforementioned biblical literalists, no one doubts this fact. Nor should they.
"Beyond reasonable doubt..." (italics mine)? In other words, according to Ruse, it is the height of un-reason to doubt or even question Darwin, that is to say Darwinian evolution. Evolution is a fact, fact, fact! Why, its as well established as "the Earth goes around the sun or that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen." Others have said as well establishe as gravity! That being so, why is it then, that every time some new discovery pops us, such as cute little Ida, the Darwinists go into a public relations tizzy proclaiming the "missing link" has been found and behaving as though they're finally vindicated. Do they not realize that such behavior belies how well established evolution supposedly is. As one biologist friend of mine pointed out, it's like a physicist crying "Stop the presses, another apple fell off a tree...Newton was right!" If evolution were indeed so well established, then discoveries like Ida would be just ho hom, "oh that's nice...put the bones in pile 637 please..." Instead, the shouting and hoopla are tacit admissions that the missing links are, well, still missing. So, how again is it UNreasonable to doubt Darwin? Oh, that's right, it isn't about Science, as Hunter very correctly points out. Its about Religion. So what Ruse is really saying is that it is unreasonable to question Naturalism. Perhaps some day Ruse and others of his ilk (ie Dawkins or Dennett) will take the trouble to tell the rest of the world how they know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any perceived design can not possibly be actual design, even in principle. I would love to see the peer reviewed scientific research study where this is established...as well established as, say, "the Earth goes around the sun or that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen." Or gravity.DonaldM_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

I think it is very poor writing on Ruse's part to contrast evolution with a literal interpretation of Genesis, as it does nothing to clarify what evolution is to the readers. Ruse does not even define the term as he intends to use it.PhilosophyFan_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply