Customer Reviews

But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Updated Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book of readings on the evolution/creationism controversy is set within the framework of the important case of McLean vs. Arkansas that overthrew an "education equal time" law in Arkansas in 1982.

As one of the reviewers who actually read the book, I will say that it is quite worthwhile. The initial article that seemed to have given one exasperated reviewer such trouble was simply Bishop Paley's famous 1805 Blind Watchmaker argument for a creator as first cause. His inclusion of the eye as an example of argument from design is famous, and has stuck with the creationists ever since. Its inclusion in the book was important.

Included articles discuss the history and development of Darwinian theory, the essence of evolutionary and creationist mechanisms (Yes, there is a creationist article in the book, by Gish), and the philosophy of science surrounding both evolution in general, and, towards the book's end, an extensive philosophical analysis of the trial arguments. I found the discussions of the trial to be fascinating.

The sophistication and topics of the essays vary widely, and I would not recommend this book as an initial introduction for the layman. An excellent book to be read first or concurrently with "But Is It Science", would be "Abusing Science", by the noted philosopher of science, Phillip Kitcher. That book covers the basic mechanics and philosophy of evolutionist/creationist theory in any easy to understand, but reasonably thorough way.

This is a very good starting point for anyone interested in either creation-evolution or issues in the philosophy of science. The final section - "The Philosophical Aftermath" - is pretty tough going for philopsophical neophytes, but the rest of the book has excellent background materials and lucid summaries of arguments and relevant philosophy. (Since it's a collection of materials from various sources, the quality and readability do vary - the opaqueness of the text an earlier reviewer implied really only applies to a few of the many essays and selections.)

The transcript of Ruse's trial testimony and his description of his involvement in the legal battle are among the best readings - concise, thorough, readable - available for clarifying why creationism is not science, and what it means to be "scientific".

Although the content of this book requires a great deal of understanding of the arguments between both evolutionists and creationists, I found it to be very informative.Likewise, philosophy is a very difficult discipline to read and understand at times. Ruse deliver's arguments from both the evolutionists and creationists perspectives in their published form. Upon doing so, the reader is able to discriminate between those claims that are scientific and those that are "nonscientific". I highly reccomend this book to anyone researching "The Evolution vs. Creationism" debate.

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.

Excellent book in general!

As a philosophy instructor emeritus,and with a special interest in the philosophy of science,I could easily relate to Part III: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Kitzmiller case. In that section, the articles by Pennock, Judge John Jones II, and Elliot Sober on why intelligent design creationsm is not science, were clear,detailed and fair. The book did allow the creationst point of view (Larry Laudan, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, et.al.)so others could read and evaluate their positions.

The last chapter in Part III by Pennock touched on the old problem of demarcation between science and non-science(pseudo-science in particular) and on the conditions necessary and /or sufficient to distinguish between the two areas.

The book is pretty much the "bible" on the creation/evolution issue,at least regarding the legality of teaching some form of creationism in the public schools. I would highly recommend the book to anyone, especially creationists of various kinds.

P.O.R.

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.

This is a very good starting point for anyone interested in either creation-evolution or issues in the philosophy of science. The final section - "The Philosophical Aftermath" - is pretty tough going for philopsophical neophytes, but the rest of the book has excellent background materials and lucid summaries of arguments and relevant philosophy. (Since it's a collection of materials from various sources, the quality and readability do vary - the opaqueness of the text an earlier reviewer implied really only applies to a few of the many essays and selections.)

The transcript of Ruse's trial testimony and his description of his involvement in the legal battle are among the best readings - concise, thorough, readable - available for clarifying why creationism is not science, and what it means to be "scientific".

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.

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.

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