I always thought Michael Ruse was intellectually challenged. Turns out he’s a world-class moron.
The most interesting thing that the creationists are doing is pointing, as Matthew says, at the beams in the eyes of the evolutionists. Meaning that we all too often get into evolutionism and link up our evolutionary positions with social prescriptions and with atheism.
I’m all in favor of social prescriptions, and I’m not knocking anybody for being an atheist. I call myself a skeptic, but that’s a hell of a lot closer to atheism than it is to Christianity. But I want to see what grounds you have for saying that, and whether or not your positions follow from one another. If they do, maybe you should ask yourself, “Am I not being a hypocrite in teaching evolutionary biology in American schools?” Given the fact that it’s clearly illegal. You’re not allowed to teach religion in biology class.
I can’t understand why I can’t get through people’s thick skulls on this one. If in fact Darwinian evolutionary theory implies atheism, then you ought not to be teaching it in schools! It’s not good enough to say, “Well, I’m a National Socialist. But the fact that that meant a lot of Jews were hauled off to Auschwitz, that’s not my worry!” It bloody is! If your theory leads to 6 million Jews being made into soap, not only is there something deeply troubling about your theory, but you’ve got a moral obligation to face up to its implications. If this theory leads to atheism, then it’s got religious implications.
Excuse me? Are you linking atheism with Nazism? Let’s not even go there. Let me just point out that If I say, “I don’t eat ice cream because it makes me sick,” I have not named my favorite flavor of ice cream. I don’t have a favorite flavor; I dislike all ice cream. Why doesn’t Ruse understand this? Is he on the payroll of the “Discovery” Institute?
YASHWATA 
I’m reading this snippet again and this part of Ruse’s piece jumps out at me: “If in fact Darwinian evolutionary theory implies atheism, then you ought not to be teaching it in schools!” Well, that’s a big if, isn’t it! The thing is, Darwinian evolutionary theory does not imply atheism, and no decent scientist claims that it does. “Darwin was right, therefore there are no gods”? — no, this is a non-sequitur. Some might say that Darwin’s discovery *supports* or *encourages* atheism, but as a professional philosopher you must recognize that there is a big difference between ‘supports’ and ‘implies’. In this context, ‘implies’ would mean something like ‘proves’ or ‘necessitates’. Evolution obviously does not prove atheism – and, again, no one is seriously claiming that it does. So, why is Ruse claiming that they do?
“Atheism is precisely not a religion.” That’s very good. This very simple idea seems very hard for some people to understand — but maybe that’s because they don’t want to understand it.
Your formulation leads me to another one: “A religion” is exactly what atheism is not.
I came across this post serendipitously.
While I think moron might be a little harsh, I agree with your questioning of Ruse’s logic. There’s a lot wrong with his reasoning.
I don’t think that the people he chastises are saying that religion shouldn’t be taught in school. Rather, I think they are saying that we shouldn’t teach things in school that are scientifically unsound. There need be no hypocrisy as he suggests. If Christianity, or a belief in God, or some particular religious doctrine was the logical consequence of scientific reasoning, then I’m sure the scientists would want us to teach it in school. It just so happens that evolutionary theory does not seem to support the notion of God, at least a God that matters anyway.
The conflation of atheism with religion also troubles me. Atheism is precisely not a religion. If it is, so is agnosticism, since agnosticism is de facto atheism. In which case, we’re all religious and according to Ruse’s argument, we probably should’t be teaching anything in school.