Ruse and Religion

I just returned home from the Dembski/Ruse debate and the discussions that ensued. I came late and missed most of the debate and did not hear Dembski present. I heard the end of Ruse’s last presentation and the Q & A session. I had a question to ask Michael Ruse, but wasn’t able to at the debate.

My question was really going to be a challenge of sorts, rather than an attempt to satisfy curiosity. It seemed to me that Ruse was playing two sides, taking up whichever one was the most convenient at the time. On the one hand, he would say that it is possible that there is a transcendent, self-existing, necessary being and that the supernatural might exist. He would then also argue that science must presuppose naturalism and that methodical naturalism must be applied. It seems to me that when he makes both of these claims that he throws the relationship of science to truth under the bus. He is essentially arguing that science must adhere to framework that might be completely contrary to reality.

Vague and Misleading Articles #1

Today I read this article in Wired News, about the National Academy of Sciences releasing a report concerning the importance of teaching evolution in schools. 

The article says, “The new document includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including an important fossil find.” The article, however, fails to mention any specific evidence.

The article goes on to say that there is a lack of evidence for anti-evolution views. Intelligent design (ID) is described as “an alternative to evolution favored by some religious conservatives.” While this is true, I think this still misleading. It lends itself to be mistaken to mean that only religious conservatives support ID, which simply isn’t true.

I think the statement that angered me the most was, “Intelligent design holds that the universe’s order and complexity are so great that evolution cannot explain it.” That is not what ID purports! ID holds that specified complexity within biological entities is evidence of design. Either the author, Nancy Zuckerbrod, did not research what ID is, understand what ID is, or purposefully lied about what ID is. I am also open to the idea that she found her definition of ID from someone else who committed one of the previous three choices. Nonetheless, she should have gotten her definition from Dembski, Behe, or Johnson. I find any of the four way to produce that statement to be either incredibly lazy or incredibly deceitful.

This article said nothing of much importance; it simply furthers the portrayal of those who are anti-evolution as a dimwitted, religious, conservative minority standing in the way of the real scientists, who are calmly trying to demonstrate the importance of teaching some great scientific truth to students.

It is one of thousands of such articles that are intentionally vague, deceptive, and subtle. These articles are not necessarily dangerous because of what they say, but usually because of the things they imply. Now and then, I am going to examine and point out one of these dangerous articles.