|
Review Summary: Baconian science, modern style |
Date: 2007-05-14 |
|
| |
Details: Although not published until 1996, "But Is It Science?" concerns primarily the Arkansas creationism court trial of 1982, and most of the papers were written around that time. By coming out as early as 1996, the book also misses the novelty, if any, of the claims of "intelligent design."
Thus falling between two stools as far as pertinence to public controversy goes, the book remains a useful history and guide to the attempts of Christian bigots to dress Genesis literalism (actually, faux-literalism) as science.
Most of the information here is available elsewhere, but the first sections, in which Ruse recounts his participation as a witness for the orthodox Christians and scientists who challenged the Monkey statute, is distinctive. (It should be recalled that the Institute for Creation Research is pretty far outside mainstream American Christianity, on theological grounds.)
It is also the best part of the book, leading up to Judge Overton's decision that creation-science is religion, is not science and cannot be taught in public schools. So far, so good. Overton's decision is reprinted in full.
Since Ruse is a philosopher of science, the essays also delve into the philosophy of science as it is applied to biology, both as it was argued in court and its status generally.
These sections are less satisfactory. Ruse was sharply attacked by two other philosophers of science, Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn, for having incorrectly defined science. That may be, although Laudan and Quinn do rather worse, failing to detect the difference between science and scientism -- they seem to think that because creationists dress up their theory as falsifiable and testable, that makes it "science" within the meaning of the act and of the philosophy.
This is just silly. The flat-earth theory is as falsifiable and testable as creationism, but no one mistakes it for a branch of science, because it has been thoroughly defeated. So has creationism. The refusal of religious bigots to acknowledge its defeat empirically ought to count for something. If they wish to maintain their opinion in the teeth of the evidence, as Pascal recommended, by preferring faith in the unseen to what they see with their own eyes, that's fine; but they should have the decency not to simultaneously claim scientific standing for their notions.
It is the attempt to have things both ways that grates on fair-minded people.
This confusion among leading philosophers of science helps explain why so many working scientists pay no attention to grand philosophical theories about what science is. Quinn says "philosophy of science contributed nothing" to the effectiveness of Overton's decision, which is largely true, though not for the reason he thinks.
To the extent that the arguments in the first part of the book are good, they apply equally to "intelligent design." ID is lipstick applied to the snout of the creationist pig, but it's the same old pig.
Ruse concludes with a plea for science-minded people to read creationist (nowadays, intelligent design) literature. This is excellent advice. The full flavor of the antiscientific nature of the pig really cannot be appreciated second-hand. Scientific critiques of creationism, no matter how fervent or well conducted, are to creationism as soy protein is to real bacon. |
| |
|
Review Summary: The battle isn't over yet... |
Date: 2006-09-22 |
|
| |
|
Details: This book presents a nicely edited group of scientific writings, including the opening words of the book of Genesis. I did find Michael Ruse's writings on evolution to be a bit simplistic compared to Richard Dawkins, but the book stands as a good primer on the evolution versus creationism debates. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Simple world |
Date: 2005-11-18 |
|
| |
Details: Life is simple in the world of Michael Ruse
A:
1) Only true scientists are entitled to question evolution
2) Creationists are not true scientists,
3) Creationists are not entitled to question evolution
B:
1) Only true scientists are entitled to question evolution
2) Only evolutionists are true scientists
3) Only evolutionists are entitled to question evolution
4) Evolutionists won't question evolution
C:
1) Creationists are are not entitled to question evolution
2) Evolutionists don't question evolution
3) Evolution cannot and won't be questioned
4) Evolution is true, since it cannot and won't be questioned
Life is really simple in Michael Ruse's world
|
| |
|
Review Summary: But is it ideology? |
Date: 2004-02-17 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Even for a Darwin skeptic this is a useful collection of pieces dealing with Darwinism, and also includes material on Karl Popper, along with the philosopher of science Laudan on Judge Overton. The essays by Laudan and Popper are a reminder that when you actually check the particulars of evolutionary theory things don't really add up. Popper clearly pointed to the problem. But given the ideological fixation, and the infrastruture of sophistries to back that up, mere epistemological difficulties don't even register on the reality meter, long since switched off by Darwinists. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Excellent Anthology of the Arguments |
Date: 2001-06-21 |
|
| |
|
Details: This is in effect an anthology of selected writings dealing with the science vs. creationism issue. The author starts with Bishop Paley's famous blind watchmaker argument for a creator and brings the arguments up to date. As other reviewers have noted, the quality of the reading depends in some cases on the original author. However, Ruse has done a good job of including a variety of styles and levels, and a complete reading should give you a good overview of the arguments over the years. This makes a good reference book or a good reader for someone trying to familiarize themselves with the controversy. The extensive philosophical analysis of the trial arguments are indeed fascinating. |
| |
|
out of 10 Reviews
