Andrew O'Hehir summarizes a portion of a new book by Michael Ruse:
Ruse is drawing a crucial distinction between evolutionary science, narrowly considered -- which need not have any religious or spiritual consequences -- and evolutionism, the secular, atheistic religion he says often accompanies and enfolds Darwinism. Leading evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse believes, have failed to draw clear distinctions between the two, and have led many to believe that Darwinian science is fatally allied to an arrogant atheism and a hostile caricature of religious belief. [. . .][Ruse] honors the truth claims of science and is "a hell of a lot closer" to atheism than to religious belief. But he thinks evolutionists must purge themselves of reflexive anti-religious fervor, and acknowledge at least the potential validity of the classic Augustinian position that science and theology can never directly contradict one another, since science can only consider nature and God, by definition, is outside nature. Without this consciousness, Ruse suggests, evolutionism is in fact a secular religion, a church without Christ. And if that's what it is, what is it doing in biology class? The current Supreme Court, trending ever rightward on questions of religion in public life, may wish to address this question sooner rather than later.
The above formulations leave something to be desired, but two very important points emerge.
1. The first is that evolutionary science must not be confused with evolutionism, a metaphysical position that goes well beyond anything that any natural science can establish. Calling evolutionism an "atheistic religion," however, is a mistake. An atheistic religion is a religion that does not posit a deity. Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Evolutionism, however, is not a religion since it is the rejection of religion. This is not to say that it doesn't have some traits in common with religion. It does, but then so does Communism which is not a religion.
Evolutionism is better described as a species of naturalistic metaphysics. But however we label it, the main point is that it is an 'add on' to natural science proper rather than a position entailed by natural science. To put it another way, natural science is neutral on the question whether reality is exhausted by the natural world. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Both are epistemic possibilities given what we know from natural science.
To illustrate, one of the things we know from natural science is that all terrestrial life has a common ancestry: there is a single 'tree of life' on earth. But this piece of knowledge is logically consistent both with the existence of God (classically conceived) and with the nonexistence of God.
2. The second point follows from the first. If evolutionism is naturalistic metaphysics, rather than natural science, then it no more belongs in the biology classroom than metaphysics does. Consider a parallel case. There are various competing approaches in the philosophy of mathematics: Platonism, nominalism, etc. But the latter do not belong in the mathematics classroom except for the occasional en passant reference. Biologists and mathematicians ought to treat their subject-matters while remaining neutral on the philosophical questions that are beyond their expertise.
I tend to agree with this view, but the naturalists can make a good response. I've just posted some thoughts of my own; I'd be interested to know what you think.
Merry Christmas, my friend!
What a magic elixir dopamine must be to impart such a power!
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.