Talk:Michael Ruse

resp

In response to the {{explain significance}} tag, I submit his CV. Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A serious scholar

Ruse is a serious scholar. He is published by the likes of Harvard University Press, University of Chicago Press, Cambridge University Press, etc. These presses do not publish cranks. I am not sufficiently familiar with his work to explain how he differs from Gould, Johnson and other scientists (Ruse is a philosopher of science).--BrentS 02:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Little confused by the end of this sentence:

"A prolific author published by prestigious university presses, he taught at the University of Guelph Canada for 35 years and since his retirement at Florida State University."

So, did he teach at Guelph, then go to Florida State U, then retire, or teach at Guelph, retire and then go to Florida State for some reason? A little clarification on that last part is needed. --Havermayer 23:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

American vs Canadian

Re category Ontario or Canadian academics being removed. How is it a person can be a Canadian citizen, spend 35 years teaching at a Canadian university, spend one or two years at a US university, and the person becomes an American philosopher? Now that is imperial appropriation!BrentS 05:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawkins doesn't believe that it is impossible to reconcile Christianity and evolution

Or at least, I've never heard or read him say anything of the kind, and I've read nearly all of his books and articles having to do with religion. Dawkins believes that evolution destroys what he considers the best argument for God's existence (the argument from design), and he probably considers Ruse's attempts to make his religious beliefs fit with scientific truth rather pathetic, but that doesn'y imply that he thinks that Christians can't accept evolution and still be Christians.

Therefore, Dawkins' name should be removed from the following sentence unless somebody can find a reference: "Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory, unlike, for example, Richard Dawkins, Phillip E. Johnson or Edward O. Wilson."

Actually, I doubt that a reference can be found to support the same statement about E.O. Wilson, but I don't know enough about his writings to make this claim with confidence.

Janusimon (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the Dawkins position is a little strong, and it's obviously slanted. It appears to have been written by a Dawkins fan. More than that, we can assume that Ruse himself does not think he has misunderstood Dawkins, but still his failure to understand has been presented as fact. At the very least, it should be said that "some have alleged that Ruse does not understand Dawkins' position." Immediately following that should be a description of Ruse's retort to those accusations.

Acpark11 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

National Categories?

I'm curious about the policy of Wikipedia's policy on nationality. Is it necessary for that person to be a citizen or merely a resident of a country before (s)he can be included in that country's categories? Should he be listed as Canadian or American now, and when is it okay to change that designation?

Gimmickless (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He very recently became a US citizen. (Possibly after you posted that comment!) Nick (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

American Atheist, English Agnostic

Um...I don't know what to say. Unless Ruse becomes an atheist whenever he is in America, but upon returning to his native soil decides that, well, maybe there's a small chance there is a God after all. Corbmobile (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he's Canadian and an atheist, not an American and agnostic. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

UK people sometimes use the term agnostic when Americans would use weak atheist. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably

Ruse wrote, "Speaking as one who has probably no more religious beliefs than Richard Dawkins, I don't see anything morally wrong with someone trying to reconcile science and religion." See A Scientific Defense of the Templeton Foundation. Dawkins is considered an atheist. I originally wrote the word 'probably' when paraphrasing what Ruse wrote but that was reverted. I've considered the issue and I think probably shouldn't appear in the article unless it's clear it's a direct quote. There shouldn't be a big issue with paraphrasing the identical word that the author wrote about himself. Still if probably stays in this article outside a clear quote other Wikipedians will include vague words like that in the wrong places in other articles. I made it clear it's a quote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

details?

"Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian faith with evolutionary theory, unlike, for example, Phillip E. Johnson.[3] Though Ruse regards Richard Dawkins' stance as one similar to Phillip E. Johnson's, that is, Christian faith is incompatible with evolutionary theory in the sense that a religious believer must either reject religion or evolution."

I'm sorry, can somebody please explain the meaning of the second sentence here? Now what exactly does Ruse think about Dawkins and Johnson (I know they're not on friendly terms, but no indication here)? (Ok, I'm not a native English speaker, but this sentence still doesn't make sense to me). Also, what exactly is a "philosopher of biology"? And what did he study at university? That isn't mentioned. (I suppose philosophy?) Hoemaco (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be better written, but basically he thinks Dawkins and Johnson are similar in that they both feel that is not logical to believe both creationism and evolution at the same time, that the ideas are completely incompatible. Philip Johnson's brand of creationism is incompatible with evolution. Richard Dawkins feels it is intellectually dishonest to accept some sort of creationism, like theistic evolution or day-age creationism while accepting the science of evolution. Ruse feels that it is possible to accept both ideas. Hope that helps... Auntie E. (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Ruse/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This entry was obviously submitted by its subject. Ruse is not even well-known enough to merit such a suspiciously elaborate and positive entry. I would recommend that it be either removed or de-weaseled. Bataille23 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories

This article puts Ruse in the category "Canadian atheists" and then puts him in the category "Canadian agnostics". How can he be both?Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See 'American Atheist, English Agnostic' above. He's an atheist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)