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.

Atheism, Discussion / Debate, Evolution, Intelligent Design, People, Theology | Brian | February 28, 2009 12:59 am

3 Comments

By Matt, March 2, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

I personally don’t think that you missed that much in what you missed of the debate. The debate was more about semantics than anything - whether or not ID was science, as opposed to whether ID (or Darwinism) were valid. Dembski’s presentation was decent, but a significant part of it revolved around ID’s acceptance (or lack thereof) in the scientific community. I felt that it would have been more useful if Dembski had argued more vigorously for the scientific validity of ID (thus answering the question of whether or not it’s science in the process) on objective grounds, while making passing remarks at the corresponding scientific weaknesses of Darwinism. But sadly, that didn’t happen.

I think that the debate was good for exposing people to ID who were unaware or only marginally aware of it. However, for those more familiar with the issues, I think it was closer to being a waste of two hours. It did create some opportunities for discussion afterward, though, so some good definitely came out of it.