His 1996 book on the idea of progress in biology (orthogenesis), Monad to Man, had a mixed reception from other philosophers of biology.
Peter J. Bowler described it as an important and controversial book on the status of evolutionism.[4]
Ron Amundson called Ruse an analytic and empiricist philosopher, but found Ruse's handling of structuralism "less satisfactory" than of the adaptationist, Darwinian traditions.[4] He called Ruse's writing style "bluff, unselfconscious, and opinionated" and finds Ruse sarcastic, "scarcely a neutral observer".[4]Michael Ghiselin criticised Ruse as a "politically correct" "academic bigot", disagreed with Ruse's narrative about phylogenetics, and accused him of "completely ignor[ing] recent work such as by Carl Woese, "neglect[ing] data" that contradict his thesis. Ironically, in Ghiselin's view, Ruse's own epistemological ideal for science relied on the idea of Progress.[5]
Ruse delivered some of the 2001 Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow. His lectures on Evolutionary Naturalism, "A Darwinian Understanding of Epistemology" and "A Darwinian Understanding of Ethics," are collected in The Nature and Limits of Human Understanding (ed. Anthony Sanford, T & T Clark, 2003). Ruse debated regularly with William A. Dembski, a proponent of intelligent design.[6] Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian faith with evolutionary theory.[7] Ruse founded the journal Biology and Philosophy, of which he was Emeritus Editor,[8] and had published numerous books and articles. He cited the influence of his late colleague Ernan McMullin.[9]
In 2014, Ruse was named the Bertrand Russell Society's award winner for his dedication to science and reason.[11]
Ruse sought to reconcile science and religion, a position which brought him into conflict with Richard Dawkins and Pharyngula science bloggerPZ Myers.[12][13] Ruse had engaged in heated exchanges with new atheists.[13][14] According to Ruse in 2009, "Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, likens me to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler at Munich. Jerry Coyne reviewed one of my books (Can a Darwinian be a Christian?) using the Orwellian quote that only an intellectual could believe the nonsense I believe in. And non-stop blogger P. Z. Myers has referred to me as a 'clueless gobshite.'" Ruse said new atheists do the side of science a "grave disservice", a "disservice to scholarship", and that "Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course",[13][14] and that The God Delusion makes him "ashamed to be an atheist". Ruse concluded, saying "I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster".[13][14]
Personal life and death
Ruse had two children from his first marriage, and was married to his second wife from 1985, with whom he had three children. Ruse was an atheist. He rejected the New Atheism movement.[13]
Ruse died on 1 November 2024, at the age of 84.[15][16]
^ abcAmundson, Ron (September 1998). "Reviewed Work: Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology by Michael Ruse". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 49 (3): 515–521. doi:10.1093/bjps/49.3.515. JSTOR688089.
^Ghiselin, Michael T. (1997). "Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Michael Ruse". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 72 (4): 452. doi:10.1086/419959.
^Stewart, R.B. (2007). Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue. New York: Fortress Press.
^Ruse, Michael (2000). Can a Darwinian be a Christian?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
^ abcdeRuse, Michael (August 2009). "Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster". Beliefnet. The BioLogos Foundation as a columnist of Beliefnet. Retrieved 19 August 2015. … the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice … these people do a disservice to scholarship … Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing … the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group … the new atheists are doing terrible political damage to the cause of Creationism fighting. Americans are religious people … They want to be science-friendly, although it is certainly true that many have been seduced by the Creationists. We evolutionists have got to speak to these people. We have got to show them that Darwinism is their friend not their enemy. We have got to get them onside when it comes to science in the classroom. And criticizing good men like Francis Collins, accusing them of fanaticism, is just not going to do the job. Nor is criticizing everyone, like me, who wants to build a bridge to believers – not accepting the beliefs, but willing to respect someone who does have them … The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist … They are a bloody disaster …
^ abcDougherty, T; Gage, LP (2015). "4/ New Atheist Approaches to Religion, pp. 51-62". In Oppy, Graham (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. pp. 52–53. ISBN9781844658312. Michael Ruse (2009) claimed that Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail 'any philosophy or religion course'; and for this reason Ruse says The God Delusion made him 'ashamed to be an atheist'