Why I Think that Michael Ruse is a Disaster

Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and a Darwin scholar who has written voluminously on Darwinism and the Evolution-Creation struggle. A self-proclaimed agnostic and skeptic, Ruse is also known as a strong supporter of reconciliation between science and religion. That said, he has taken creationists to task for promoting what he believes is definitely not science. Now, in an article for Beliefnet (“Why I Think the New Atheists are a Disaster”), Ruse is taken the so-called “new atheists” to task and calling them a “disaster.” I like Ruse and much of his work, but I am afraid that the only disaster here is Michael Ruse himself.

He finds the criticisms leveled recently at Francis Collins “deplorable” given “the man’s scientific and managerial credentials.” Of course, nobody is criticizing Collins’ scientific and managerial credentials. Rather, the criticisms are specifically aimed at the ways in which Collins’ faith-based evangelical Christianity seems to cut off or categorically dismiss valid areas of scientific research and how he uses science in pitiful and embarrassing ways to try and prop up that Christianity. Ruse doesn’t directly confront whether or not any of these criticisms are valid. He just seems to be unhappy that this nice man is being roundly called out. Too bad.

Ruse then turns his attention directly on the new atheists – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.

Let me say that I believe the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice. I will defend to the death the right of them to say what they do – as one who is English-born one of the things I admire most about the USA is the First Amendment. But I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.

It has been a common criticism that Dawkin’s book is not philosophically rigorous or doesn’t address or attempt to understand more theologically sophisticated or nuanced positions. Ruse then compares this to somebody trying to criticize Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene without a deep understanding of genetics. I say that it is laughable to compare the scientific field of genetics to theology. The latter is built on a house of cards, and no matter how “sophisticated” or “nuanced” one’s theology may get, the slightest breeze is enough to collapse the entire enterprise in on itself. Dawkins makes this plain in his book. His arguments are sound. Dressing them up in philosophical jargon would not have served his purpose or his targeted audience. If someone, after reading The God Delusion, desires more philosophical rigor, then I am sure he or she can pick up one of Ruse’s excellent books on the subject (and I am not being sarcastic on that point).

Secondly, I think that the new atheists are doing terrible political damage to the cause of Creationism fighting. Americans are religious people. You may not like this fact. But they are. Not all are fanatics. Survey after survey shows that most American Christians (and Jews and others) fall in the middle on social issues like abortion and gay marriage as well as on science. They want to be science-friendly, although it is certainly true that many have been seduced by the Creationists. We evolutionists have got to speak to these people. We have got to show them that Darwinism is their friend not their enemy. We have got to get them onside when it comes to science in the classroom. And criticizing good men like Francis Collins, accusing them of fanaticism, is just not going to do the job. Nor is criticizing everyone, like me, who wants to build a bridge to believers – not accepting the beliefs, but willing to respect someone who does have them.

This is probably the heart of the matter for Ruse (and the criticisms that appear in Chris Mooney’s recent book Unscientific America). The new atheists are (supposedly) failing (how he knows this I am not sure) to educate religious believers about science because the new atheists also attack religious belief. I am not sure exactly what Ruse would have us do here. Do we tell people that faith-based thinking is perfectly acceptable so long as it is willing to bend to incorporate scientific truths? I hardly see the value in doing so. If you want people to accept the full range of science then you must try and get them to start thinking scientifically rather than religiously. The point is not simply to get religious believers to accept evolution. Many Christians, including Collins, have made evolution essentially a part of their religion. This does not get to the root of the problem, which is faith and believing propositions dogmatically without any evidence.

When Collins or other Christians proclaim that God uses evolution to create life and bestows a special interest on the species homo sapiens, for example, Ruse (although he doesn’t believe it) is apparently happy. But why should we be? The fact that it successfully marries science and faith doesn’t mean that it is a more respectable or justifiable position. Indeed, it is not justifiable at all. But Ruse would seemingly have us compromise intelligent and respectable discourse to pander to fantastical notions. That would be a disaster because it is essentially maintaining a lie – that faith based thinking is in and of itself is a valid way to approach knowledge about the universe. It is not. Let’s not lie to people and pretend that it is just because we want them to accept a theory or two.

We want people to arrive at the conclusion of evolution because it follows from a rational approach to the evidence – not because theology can be mended to incorporate it.

Most importantly, the new atheists are doing terrible damage to the fight to keep Creationism out of the schools. The First Amendment does not ban the teaching of bad science in publicly funded schools. It bans the teaching of religion. That is why it is crucial to argue that Creationism, including its side kick IDT, is religion and not just bad science. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If teaching “God exists” is teaching religion – and it is – then why is teaching “God does not exist” not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment.

This is just silly. Teaching that God does not exist is not teaching a religion. Atheism is not a religious position. However, teaching atheism as true in a public school setting would still be problematic constitutionally, albeit for a slightly different reason. One could interpret that as “inhibiting the free exercise of religion.” Certainly we do not want government to support Christianity at the expense of atheists any more than we want government to support atheism at the expense of Christians. Evolution and Darwinism should be taught because it is sound science. Students can draw their own conclusions about God.

I think that P. Z. Myers and his crew are as disastrous to the evolution side – and people like me need to say this – as Ben Stein is disastrous to the Creationism side – and the Creationists should have had the guts to say so. I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so.

I like to call a spade a spade. If telling the truth is a disaster, it can’t be any more of a disaster than lying to appease a fundamentally irrational mindset.