Reply to Ruse

In the Monday, March 8 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Ruse wrote an article entitled, “Philosophers Rip Darwin,” in which he rips Jerry Fodor for his book, What Darwin Got Wrong.
It is easy to see from this article that Michael Ruse does indeed read the works of many who object to Darwinian evolution as a complete picture of biological origin, and I commend his many clear statements of their positions. Overall, however, I question his approach here to answering them.
First he states that new objections are coming from philosophy and then mentions his own connection with philosophy. Fine. But then he lists biological advancements that assume a Darwinian viewpoint. I see no connection. If there are holes in the logic (philosophy), then it doesn’t matter what the observations are (only one half of science).
He then addresses objectors by first positioning them as religious. What has that got to do with the validity of their arguments, unless they argue from religious texts? They don’t. He points out that Plantinga believes in ID and is committed to debunking evolution. If these disqualify him from participating in the debate, then Ruse is disqualified for his commitment to Darwinian evolution and his religious position.
Then Ruse begins his response. “What does one say about these critics? ..To say that a speckled moth is less likely to be eaten by a robin than a dark moth, because the robin can less easily see the speckled moth against the lichen-covered tree, is to say nothing about God or any other conscious being.” I agree. Why is he bringing it up? Plantinga and Fodor don’t. They stick to philosophy and science.
His barrage of current scientific investigations and findings are impressive, and cause me to be proud of human accomplishments, but I must disagree that “the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade—[have] been shown to be the exquisite end result of evolution. “
And as for his “suspicion ..that Fodor doesn’t really give a damn about fruit flies or finches or anything else out there. But when it comes to Homo sapiens, he wants no part of a naturalistic explanation that reduces design to the workings of blind law”: So what? The point is that sufficient “blind laws” have not been found. And the philosophical arguments of Fodor, which I thought this article was to address, remain unanswered.

This entry was posted on March 8, 2010 at 11:52 am and is filed under Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.