Michael Ruse Says Evolution Teaches Atheism

If Darwinism teaches atheism, can this be taught in the public schools? It’s a question that was brought up by a  philosopher of biology and atheist in the evolutionary framework. Michael Ruse has re-affirmed what creationists have been saying for years on this issue.

He writes

“If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”

Like many evolutionists, they make the mistake of replacing Darwinism with the word, science. It’s meaning entails a broad definition that includes other areas.  In answer to his question, it addresses something religious as though it has the power to define what is or not about religious views. No machines create themselves into existence then build themselves afterwards into a highly advanced, finely tuned, system which resembles intelligently made machines.

Interpretation of what that data means is not science either rather it’s a subjective opinion based on a bias or knowledge at that point in time. Coyne who spends quite a deal of time on the creationism vs. evolution debate writes his angle on Ruse…

“I try to keep this website classy, so, in response to Michael Ruse’s latest public display of stupidity, I’ll refrain from calling him a “clueless gobshite”. Let’s just say that his brain has passed its sell-by date.  And just when you think his arguments can’t get any loonier, he comes up with a new one.  This time he argues that anyone who maintains that science and religion are at war, and are mutually exclusive constructs, is begging for the courts to ban science from public school classrooms.”

Evolution vs. Christianity as well as other religions are at war. Science, on the other hand is not at war with Christianity. Would it anti-biblical to know how the brain functions or the heart? Would it be anti-biblical to invent a particular electric car that doesn’t use massive amounts of energy or need gas? None of these things are anti-biblical yet they are based on the scientific method. It’s interpretation of evolution into everything that is called science.  A vast amount of things explain by evolution is not principles of logic, nor observation, experimentation and reason.

For instance, mutations play a significance role for demonstrating how evolution works in nature. An experiment was conducted by Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University on bacteria. Scientists had the flexibility to insert mutations in any area along the length of the genome. The results were surprising because it caused a reduction in fitness rather than an increase which evolution requires. While mutations can be tested in a lab, it doesn’t mean evolution is true, the experiment showed evidence against what is deemed to be an absolute fact by Coyne and others. However, it does show how nature actually works which is not anti-biblical at all.

Michael Ruse brings up another thing, could evolution be banned with it’s teaching atheism according to the church and state clause? Coyne and others say one can’t bring their beliefs in the lab, isn’t that restricting freedom of religion too? If a person concludes the brain for example is designed by God rather than random mutations being created then directed by natural selection, and the establishment telling you can’t believe that inside a lab while doing research, isn’t that a violation of church and state? Indeed it is, but what Michael Ruse fails to point out, judges are highly unlikely to ban evolution from public schools but the objections of it gets louder as more data falsifies it’s metaphysical premise!

6 thoughts on “Michael Ruse Says Evolution Teaches Atheism

  1. Same old stuff …

    Michael, “Darwinism” does not exist.

    And the theory of evolution says nothing about theism or atheism, obviously. It is a scientific theory, not a religious idea.

  2. Eelco,

    “Darwinism” is…“various late nineteenth century ideologies (revised many times over since) which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.”

  3. So evolution teaches atheist because Michael Ruse says so?

    This is the same old bogus. Evoution is no more atheistic than gravity.

  4. Sometimes it’s hard to tell when Michael Ruse is serious,, and when he’s just trying to raise a ruckus.[1] In the case of this particular expectoration, I think he’s mostly raising a rhetorical question. one that he has raised before, so I’m not sure why now or why again.

    In any case, there is a simple answer to “And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”

    The implications of a theory have no bearing upon whether it is a scientific theory or not. Einstein, for instance, had a strong philosophical distaste for quantum theory. Because he thought it implied that there was no objective reality. For this reason, he thought it was wrong. But he never thought it was not scientific because of that implication. Evolution is not a religion because it may have religious implications.

    Conversely, creationism and intelligent design are not non-scientific because they have religious implications. Judge Jones said that in the Kitzmiller v Dover case; earlier creationism cases said that as well.

    Rather, creationism and ID are non-scientific because they do not follow the established scientific methodology. That is, it’s central explanatory method, special creation, cannot be falsified by physical evidence. [2]

    A lot of people are scratching their heads to try to figure out why Ruse said what he did. On the surface, it’s puerile. Did he have some deeper purpose? No one knows. But, for whatever reason, his italicized statement above is just plain stupid. Creationists have fitfully made the same claim for many decades, without any more success. It was made and destroyed in the Edwards v Aguillard case at the Supreme Court in 1987.

    Perhaps Michael has a new angle on this tired argument. Of course, he has not yet vouchsafed to his readers his qualifications to discuss anything concerning science, let alone what is or is not science.


    [1] Paul Feyerabend had the same quirk. One never knew when he wasjoking. He said one time that he himself didn’t believe half the things he said.

    [2] Creationism does make subsidiary claims, such as a few thousand years for the age of the earth. But the central claim, the quintessential tenet cannot. Michael might have noticed this himself: any time a scientist says that a certain event happened, Michael can figure out a way that God could have done it that way. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. .

  5. @Michael “No machines create themselves into existence then build themselves afterwards into a highly advanced, finely tuned, system which resembles intelligently made machines.”

    Really? How do you know?

    Michael is 60 years out of date in systems theory. John von Neumann proved mathematically in the 1950s that machines could reproduce themselves without external guidance. For a trivially simple example, look up John Conway’s ” Game of Life”.

    Michel believes that what he does not know does not exist. If this were true, Eelco might wonder where the universe had gone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s