Skip to main content
Log in

Religion, Misallodoxy and the Teaching of Evolution: The Influence of Michael Matthews

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. I give a historical background, my testimony, the ruling, as well as the controversy afterward between me and Laudan and others in my collection, But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy (1988).

  2. The important IDT works were Johnson (1991, 1995), Behe (1996), and Dembski (1998). Significant critical works include Pennock (1998), Miller (1999) and Forrest and Gross (2004). Pennock and Ruse (2008) updates Ruse (1988) including material on the Dover trial of 2005. See also the collaborative effort—no wonder people get tense around me!—Dembski and Ruse (2004). It was a very strange experience editing a volume where you were praying that half of the material would be worse than your wildest dreams.

  3. http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm.

  4. This is not a way of sliding in religion. In Ruse (2015) I make it very clear that I do not believe in the truth of Christianity or any other religion, but I make my case on philosophical and theological grounds rather than because I think religion is refuted by science. Of course you cannot believe in Noah’s Flood and modern geology. I would say you cannot believe in Adam and Eve and modern paleoanthropology and that that drives a horse and cart through the Augustinian take on original sin. But there are many issues in religion, like why is there something rather than nothing, untouched by and even untouchable by modern science (Ruse 2010).

  5. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0.

References

  • Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1995). A river out of Eden. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing mount improbable. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2003). A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on hope, lies, science and love. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. New York: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (2004). Debating design: Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gish, D. (1973). Evolution: The Fossils say no!. San Diego: Creation-Life.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1980). The Panda’s thumb. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1985). The Flamingo’s smile: Reflections in natural history. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The burgess shale and the nature of history. New York, NY: W. W. Norton Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1991). Bully for brontosaurus: Reflections in natural history. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1995). Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law and education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E. J. (2013). Teaching creation, evolution, and the New Atheism in 21st century America: Window on an evolving establishment clause. Mississippi Law Journal, 82, 997–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1974). The genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (20th anniversary revised and expanded edition). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific Creationism to intelligent design (Standard ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numbers, R. L. (2011). Clarifying Creationism: Five common myths. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33, 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. (1998). Tower of Babel: Scientific evidence and the new Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (2008). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy (2nd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1979). The Darwinian revolution: Science red in tooth and claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (Ed.). (1988). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1996). Monad to man: The concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2005). The evolution-creation struggle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2006). Darwinism and its discontents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2010). Science and spirituality: Making room for faith in the age of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2015). Atheism: What everyone needs to know. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb, J. C., & Morris, H. M. (1961). The genesis flood: The biblical record and its scientific implications. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ruse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruse, M. Religion, Misallodoxy and the Teaching of Evolution: The Influence of Michael Matthews. Sci & Educ 24, 815–820 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9747-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9747-9

Keywords

Navigation