David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):25 - 38 (2004)
The eminent historian and philosopher of biology, Michael Ruse, has written several books that explore the relationship of evolutionary theory to its larger scientific and cultural setting. Among the questions he has investigated are: Is evolution progressive? What is its epistemological status? Most recently, in "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose?," Ruse has provided a history of the concept of teleology in biological thinking, especially in evolutionary theorizing. In his book, he moves quickly from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and such British thinkers as Paley and Whewell. His main focus, though, is on Darwin's theory and its subsequent fate. Ruse rests his history on some shaky historical and philosophic assumptions, particularly the unexamined notion that evolutionary theory is an abstract entity that is unproblematically realized in different historical periods. He also assumes that Darwin conceived nature as if it were a Manchester spinning loom -- a clanking, dispassionate machine. A more subtle analysis, which Ruse eschews, might discover that Darwin's conception of nature owed a strong debt to German Romanticism and that he contrived to infuse nature with moral and aesthetic values, not to suck them from nature. Ruse proves he is a thinker to contend with, and this essay is quite contentious
|Keywords||adaptation altruism Charles Darwin design evolutionary theory mechanism natural selection purpose Romanticism Michael Ruse teleology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alexander Rosenberg (1980). Ruse's Treatment of the Evidence for Evolution: A Reconsideration. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:83 - 93.
John Mizzoni (1998). Evolutionary Ethics: A Crack in the Foundation of Ethics? Theoretical Ethics.
Michael Ruse (1975). Darwin's Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F.W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 6 (2):159-181.
Bruce N. Waller (1996). Moral Commitment Without Objectivity or Illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
Peter Woolcock (1993). Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1990). Really Taking Darwin Seriously: An Alternative to Michael Ruse's Darwinian Metaethics. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (2):149-173.
J. Wesley Robbins (1995). If Our Genes Are for Us, Who Can Be Against Us? Thoughts of a Pragmatist on Science and Morality. Zygon 30 (3):357-367.
William Dembski, Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.
Carlos Mariscal (2011). Epistemology, Necessity, and Evolution: A Critical Review of Michael Ruse's Philosophy After Darwin. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):449-457.
Added to index2009-06-14
Total downloads25 ( #79,623 of 1,410,004 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #176,758 of 1,410,004 )
How can I increase my downloads?