What do you think?
New Dialogues in Philosophy
Evolution and Religion
Michael Ruse, a leading expert on Charles Darwin, presents a fictional dialogue among characters with sharply contrasting positions regarding the tensions between science and religious belief. Ruse's main characters—an atheist scientist, a skeptical historian and philosopher of science, a relatively liberal female Episcopalian priest, and a Southern Baptist pastor who denies evolution—passionately argue about pressing issues, in a context framed within a television show: "Science versus God— Who is Winning?" These characters represent the different positions concerning science and religion often held today: evolution versus creation, the implications of Christian beliefs upon technological advances in medicine, and the everlasting debate over free will. The second edition of this innovative text incorporates the influence of Eastern religions and philosophies on the debate on human origins, broadening the contextual reach of the dialogue into comparative philosophy and religious studies.
168 pages, Paperback
First published May 13, 2008
About the author
Michael Ruse
133 books99 followersMichael Escott Ruse was a British-born Canadian philosopher of science who specialised in the philosophy of biology and worked on the relationship between science and religion, the creation–evolution controversy, and the demarcation problem within science. Ruse began his career teaching at The University of Guelph and spent many years at Florida State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
October 14, 2011
This book takes the form of a dialogue between four possible positions on the relationship between science and religion:
1) A scientist, who takes the stance that science and religion are at unbridgeable conflict with each other,
2) A historian and philosopher of science, who believes that science and religion are both valuable, but must occupy non-overlapping spheres,
3) An Episcopalian priest, who argues that science and religion can and should be integrated, and
4) A Baptist pastor, who believes that dialogue between science and religion is important, as long as it is true science (as opposed to "false science" that contradicts his religious beliefs).
I really loved the dialogue format of this book, because it helped me to keep the four positions straight and to understand each point of view. Personally, I found myself straddling the conflict view and the non-overlapping spheres point of view. On the one hand, conflict arises when science and religion attempt to explain the same mysteries (e.g. the beginning of life). For example, natural selection and the Genesis account of the creation can't both literally be true. That's where the non-overlapping spheres ideology steps in. Personally, I believe in natural selection to explain my existence, and Genesis to give deeper meaning to my life. In other words, science is much better than religion at explaining the laws and nature of the universe, while religion is better at dictating morality and giving ultimate meaning to life.
1) A scientist, who takes the stance that science and religion are at unbridgeable conflict with each other,
2) A historian and philosopher of science, who believes that science and religion are both valuable, but must occupy non-overlapping spheres,
3) An Episcopalian priest, who argues that science and religion can and should be integrated, and
4) A Baptist pastor, who believes that dialogue between science and religion is important, as long as it is true science (as opposed to "false science" that contradicts his religious beliefs).
I really loved the dialogue format of this book, because it helped me to keep the four positions straight and to understand each point of view. Personally, I found myself straddling the conflict view and the non-overlapping spheres point of view. On the one hand, conflict arises when science and religion attempt to explain the same mysteries (e.g. the beginning of life). For example, natural selection and the Genesis account of the creation can't both literally be true. That's where the non-overlapping spheres ideology steps in. Personally, I believe in natural selection to explain my existence, and Genesis to give deeper meaning to my life. In other words, science is much better than religion at explaining the laws and nature of the universe, while religion is better at dictating morality and giving ultimate meaning to life.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review