Here is a great little article written by a philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, back in 2003:-
Is Evolution a Secular Religion?
It largely hits the nail on the head and shows how the complaint against Darwin and the theory of evolution should be argued, as opposed to the kind of silliness often written by creationists who have little more than hatred for Darwin, and are almost to a man, and women, completely clueless as to what the theory of evolution is about.
Should the reader think that the article is written by a person who likewise hates Darwin and sees his theory as the cause of pretty well every social ill there is, then it's important to note that Ruse also wrote this book:-
Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy
- and at the end of the article linked to at the start, makes these points:-
As opposed to the hatred and ignorance so often seen from creationists, Ruse is nuanced in his criticism, showing that there are two sides to this, and even in the context of the non scientific claims made in the name of evolution, he writes:-
Nuance, creationists, nuance. Honesty too, that helps a lot. Not hatred, hubris, and ignorance as illustrated by these words expressed over the past few days:-
""survival of the fittest" - that remains every bit as valid today as it did in 1859, has been and continues to be used as "scientific" justification for eugenics (as well as euthanasia, abortion, genocide, and a host of other social atrocities)." ""
"Darwin mostly supported his theory not with facts or evidence, but by arguing against straw men, and ignoring evidence. Seems that much of the same has been going on the same ever since. The "evidence" that is used to support it today seems to be more flimsy every day to me."
Is Evolution a Secular Religion?
It largely hits the nail on the head and shows how the complaint against Darwin and the theory of evolution should be argued, as opposed to the kind of silliness often written by creationists who have little more than hatred for Darwin, and are almost to a man, and women, completely clueless as to what the theory of evolution is about.
Should the reader think that the article is written by a person who likewise hates Darwin and sees his theory as the cause of pretty well every social ill there is, then it's important to note that Ruse also wrote this book:-
Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy
- and at the end of the article linked to at the start, makes these points:-
Originally posted by Ruse, at first link, bolding is mine.
As opposed to the hatred and ignorance so often seen from creationists, Ruse is nuanced in his criticism, showing that there are two sides to this, and even in the context of the non scientific claims made in the name of evolution, he writes:-
Originally posted by Ruse
""survival of the fittest" - that remains every bit as valid today as it did in 1859, has been and continues to be used as "scientific" justification for eugenics (as well as euthanasia, abortion, genocide, and a host of other social atrocities)." ""
"Darwin mostly supported his theory not with facts or evidence, but by arguing against straw men, and ignoring evidence. Seems that much of the same has been going on the same ever since. The "evidence" that is used to support it today seems to be more flimsy every day to me."
Comment