Ruse at UM

Bad timing! On Wednesday morning, I have a meeting at the Bell Museum in Minneapolis, and then I have to drive to Madison to pick up my son…so I don’t think I can possibly be back in time for this:

The Ecology Evolution and Behavior seminar on Wednesday, May 10 (4:00 p.m. in 335 Borlaug Hall on the St. Paul Campus—Coffee and cookies are served
outside of room 100 Ecology preceding each seminar 3:30 p.m.) is featuring Michael Ruse, who will speak on some variant of the evolution/creationism/ID debate.

Maybe some of you Minneapolitans/St Paulians who read this will be able to make it, but I think I’d have to drive at 180mph down I94 and back, and Connlann would have to break down his dorm room and load it into the car in 10 minutes flat. Somebody should stop by and chew him out for that nonsense he shared with Dembski a while back, though. Bring beer, and take a swig every time he accuses “Darwinists” and biologists of being fundamentalists, OK?


  1. says

    Bring beer, and take a swig every time he accuses “Darwinists” and biologists of being fundamentalists, OK?

    As long as you take the blame for all the deaths that will occur as a result of alcohol poisoning.

  2. Greg Peterson says

    I just checked about taking some time off to attend. If I’m able to go and there’s anything worth reporting, perhaps I’ll dash off an email or something. I’m not really crazy about what I’ve seen from Ruse so far, but sometimes those sorts of folks surprise me, and I’m open to being astonished, even.

  3. says

    “Highlighting modern-day partisans as divergent as Richard Dawkins and Left Behind authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins…” Dawkins and LaHaye? Is he @&*$%& serious?

    Well, I can’t go–middle of the workday, no car, and all that. Some of us work for a living, Mr. Ruse. Grrr.

  4. PaulC says

    Jason: I imagine you think you’ve made some kind of point here. Want to share?

  5. says

    PaulC: people who actually know the definition of “fundamentalism” know that the term can be applied to people other than the religious – e.g. “Darwinists,” biologists (or any scientists), atheists, agnostics, etc.

  6. Torbjörn Larsson says

    So what are “strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” that scientists stress? Other than peer review and verification of observations (repetition) and theory (attempted falsification), I mean.

    The only fundamentalism displayed here is Jason’s boring method of commenting.

  7. Dustin says

    Comparing Dawkins to that pair of shopping-mall-chapel preachers-gone-mainstream is like comparing Michael “The War in Iraq Was Based on Lies” Moore to Ann “Abortion is a liberal sacrament” Coulter.

    Ruse needs to jump back to whichever course in that philosophy degree of his was supposed to equip him with the ability to make a sound analogy. And here I actually liked “Darwinism Defended”. I feel used.

  8. BC says

    “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”

    Yeah, those scientists sure are fundamentalists – they require that people back up their theories with evidence and don’t like people making up problems in existing theories so that they can insert their imaginary friend as the solution.

  9. G. Tingey says

    Erm, perhaps, just perhaps, scientists could be called fundamentalists.
    In one respect only.
    The fundamental rule in science is:
    No un-natural explanations allowed.
    It has the appalling moniker of:
    Methodological Naturalism

    Ther must be a better label, incidentally.
    Perhaps just “Naturalism”, or “Realism”
    would be better.

    However, I don’t expect faith-based persons, who believe without evidence, to cotton on to this real soon anytime now…..

  10. says

    Minnesota is a bit far for me to go to heckle a fellow philosopher, I’m afraid. I’m trying to think who would be good to go … I’m horrible about remembering names and institutional affiliations, so ..

  11. Torbjörn Larsson says

    What defines naturalism has become deeper with our knowledge. Earlier ideas of animism in nature or mechanisms have been found wanting. While it is true that everything observed is taken as having “natural” causes I wouldn’t agree with the meaning of natural as fundamental.