Philosopher of biology Michael Ruse died Friday, November 1, 2024. Paradoxically, he was ardent in his Darwinism, mild in his atheism, and fair-minded to intelligent design.
Thank you for this thoughtful memorial. Your friendship with Ruse, along with your respectful manner of engagement, may, in the long run, bear even more fruit than all the arguments in favor of ID.
Goes to show we can be intellectual 'enemies' yet still retain some shared humanity in being good friends.
As for the tatoo, he must have lost a bet. The trilobite looks to me like the perfect precambrian symbol for the beautiful paired compound eyes as 'archetype' instead of 'ancestor'!
Very nice testimonial, Bill. I absolutely disagree with your stance on ID (indeed, I think you've thrown in the towel long ago by admitting it is Christian apologetics). But your admiration and affection for Michael transcends intellectual differences, just the way Michael himself transcended those differences with generosity and goodwill.
In this very troubling moment in American history (and I will be very disappointed in you as both a Christian and a philosopher if you are sanguine about the result of the latest election) we need so much more of this kind of goodwill, generosity, and human empathy. Michael was an example to us all in that respect.
Thanks for this comment, David, but at the risk of doubly disappointing you, even though I see ID as having apologetic value, I see it fundamentally as a scientific project (have you read my second edition of THE DESIGN INFERENCE?). Moreover, I was a strong supporter of RFK Jr right out of the blocks when he announced his candidacy in April 2023, and my support of him has not wavered. I'll let you fill in the dots.
And yes, Michael was a mensch, and I'm glad we can agree on that.
Ha! Well, I've come around to the idea that all science is socially constructed in one way or another, so I'm less opposed to the idea that science can address other values than I used to be. Also, Michael taught me not to be so hostile to folks on the "other side," and I've been slowly learning to emulate his model. When I think of the old days of the blogs and angry diatribes, I realize that we were (all) contributing to the polarization we're mired in today (not so much you--you were more like Michael and I never heard or read you make a nasty comment). Michael was the rare example of someone who could empathize with his opponents--something we really need more of in general these days.
Hi David. Thanks for this gracious note. I think your memory may be playing tricks in my favor -- I recall a lot of anger motivating me back in the day and letting my hostility bleed through in my writing. Eventually I came to see that such ill will is counterproductive, and I would say that it has much less a hold on me these days. Some of this may be the effects of age -- I'm 64 now. Some of it is painful self-reflection. Also, Michael's example was salutary -- he showed that even sharply polarized positions could be brought into friendly, civil conversation. Best to you!
Thank you for this thoughtful memorial. Your friendship with Ruse, along with your respectful manner of engagement, may, in the long run, bear even more fruit than all the arguments in favor of ID.
Bill, a beautiful 'témoignage'.
Goes to show we can be intellectual 'enemies' yet still retain some shared humanity in being good friends.
As for the tatoo, he must have lost a bet. The trilobite looks to me like the perfect precambrian symbol for the beautiful paired compound eyes as 'archetype' instead of 'ancestor'!
Marc Mullie
Ophthalmologist
Very moving; we could do with a few more Ruses
Very nice testimonial, Bill. I absolutely disagree with your stance on ID (indeed, I think you've thrown in the towel long ago by admitting it is Christian apologetics). But your admiration and affection for Michael transcends intellectual differences, just the way Michael himself transcended those differences with generosity and goodwill.
In this very troubling moment in American history (and I will be very disappointed in you as both a Christian and a philosopher if you are sanguine about the result of the latest election) we need so much more of this kind of goodwill, generosity, and human empathy. Michael was an example to us all in that respect.
Thanks for this comment, David, but at the risk of doubly disappointing you, even though I see ID as having apologetic value, I see it fundamentally as a scientific project (have you read my second edition of THE DESIGN INFERENCE?). Moreover, I was a strong supporter of RFK Jr right out of the blocks when he announced his candidacy in April 2023, and my support of him has not wavered. I'll let you fill in the dots.
And yes, Michael was a mensch, and I'm glad we can agree on that.
Ha! Well, I've come around to the idea that all science is socially constructed in one way or another, so I'm less opposed to the idea that science can address other values than I used to be. Also, Michael taught me not to be so hostile to folks on the "other side," and I've been slowly learning to emulate his model. When I think of the old days of the blogs and angry diatribes, I realize that we were (all) contributing to the polarization we're mired in today (not so much you--you were more like Michael and I never heard or read you make a nasty comment). Michael was the rare example of someone who could empathize with his opponents--something we really need more of in general these days.
Hi David. Thanks for this gracious note. I think your memory may be playing tricks in my favor -- I recall a lot of anger motivating me back in the day and letting my hostility bleed through in my writing. Eventually I came to see that such ill will is counterproductive, and I would say that it has much less a hold on me these days. Some of this may be the effects of age -- I'm 64 now. Some of it is painful self-reflection. Also, Michael's example was salutary -- he showed that even sharply polarized positions could be brought into friendly, civil conversation. Best to you!