Accommodationist and Proud of It, Part III: From Historian of Science to Creationism Fighter

"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse is an author and philosopher of biology well known for his works on the creationism and evolution debate. Though not a believer in God, he takes the position that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. Ruse's latest book, Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science, published by Cambridge University Press, argues against the extremes of both creationism and "new atheism".

Intro: This blog post is the third entry in a series of excerpts from a recent autobiographical essay by Michael Ruse. Ruse’s first post can be found here. Between Ruse’s last entry and the excerpt below, Ruse’s essay recounts his undergraduate years, when he found his niche in the study of philosophy. Although he never took a single course in biology, Ruse found a passion for the history and philosophy of biology after reading John Maynard Smith’s The Theory of Evolution. Below, Ruse describes his transition from a historian of science to a “Creationism fighter”, which was an application of his education that he didn’t see coming.

In the mid 1960s I got a job at a new university in Canada, where I stayed until 2000 and then left (for Florida State University, my present home) only because I was coming up against Canadian compulsory retirement laws.

For my first sabbatical, in the early 1970s, I went back to England. I had a special purpose because now I was becoming increasingly interested in the history of evolutionary biology. The most influential work around in my field was Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and I wanted to look at some of the issues he raised from the viewpoint of biology rather than physics and chemistry, which were his sciences of expertise.

I went to the University of Cambridge, retooled as a historian and spent long, happy hours in the manuscript room of the University Library studying the unpublished manuscripts of Charles Darwin. I ended the decade by publishing The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw.

I always describe this book as the book I wish I had had ten years before when I first started into Darwin studies, and I think that that is a pretty good characterization. The field had been going long enough that the major ideas and interpretations were now out on the table, and I synthesized them. For this reason, although obviously dated in some respects, it is still basically reliable and still in print, selling a respectable number of copies each year.

Then came Creationism. I guess as a child or teenager I had certainly heard of Creationism, and if pushed might have been able to say something (a very little something) about the Scopes Trial, where a young teacher was prosecuted for teaching his class that Genesis is not literally true. But I thought it was all in the past, a bit like weeklong dance marathons and prohibition.

Out of the blue, I was asked to debate a couple of Creationists. I started right at the top as it were, taking on the leaders in the field Henry M. Morris (co-author of the work that sparked the modern movement, Genesis Flood) and his side-kick, Duane T Gish (author of Evolution: The Fossils say No! 150,000 copies sold, something of an order of magnitude better than I ever achieve).

I had found my métier. On the one hand, my training in the history and philosophy of evolutionary biology had prepared me for their arguments, better I suspect than a training in straight science; on the other hand, my personality, honed by a decade of heavy teaching loads facing many, many undergraduates, made me a natural for the stage, realizing that in these circumstances a good joke will get you much further than a long serious argument. I cannot say I ever won a debate—that would be a miracle indeed given the audiences at these sorts of things—but I did do a lot of Creationism bashing.

I should say, incidentally, and this is important for the case I am making, that I never found that these encounters were made tense by personal differences. We might say the most dreadful things about each other on stage or on the radio – and believe me, Duane Gish is a master at this, setting out deliberately to rattle you to the full extent – but off stage everyone was unfailingly polite. Friendly even.

I think Creationism is truly dreadful and absolutely should not be taught in schools. I accept (as you will see) that I think there are all sorts of moral issues at stake here. But to this day, I cannot see the Creationists – or their successors the Intelligence Design Theorists – as evil people. They are not Hitlers. I think they are profoundly mistaken and I want to fight them, but at another level I can see the sacrifices they make for their beliefs (I am sure with his talents that Gish could have had a very successful career in science) are genuinely driven by their faith.

Dawkins and company would say that this is the very point—they are profoundly mistaken and should be fought—and at one level I agree. But I have always found it easier to hate ideas than to hate people. More than this, as a philosopher I am committed to rationality and debate. It may be right for a scientist to have little or nothing to do with Creationists—I can certainly see how people like Dawkins and Gould with their high profiles are unwilling to get entangled—but as a philosopher without that profile I feel that I must continue to engage in discussion of some kind.

I took this to the extreme, some would say over the extreme, when a year or two back I co-edited a book with the leading IDT person William Dembski. In Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA both sides had their say, although there was a joint introduction. It was a funny experience editing a volume and including material that I really did not think merited publication, and yet wanting it in because it showed just how weak was the position of the other side!

I think I was right in working with Dembski, although if someone says otherwise I am not sure I have a good response. Having said that, I have tried not to burn all bridges between me and Creationists and fellow travelers, though I think Ben Stein who made the movie Expelled is intellectually slimy. He lied to me about what he was doing when he asked to interview me (as I gather he did to many others also) and clearly was not at all interested in the truth. If I have a criticism of my Creationists friends it is that they did not stand up for me when that movie appeared, as I think I would have stood up for them.

Ruse's series continues here.

Discussion Question: Ruse describes his relationships with Creationists as “unfailingly polite. Friendly even.” Despite his different perspective on faith, Ruse felt that he was among friends with Creationists. Ironically, this isn’t always the case when fellow Christians with differing views gather together. Why is this, and what can be done to change it?