Entrusting the life that has evolved: A response to Michael Ruse's Ruse

Zygon 29 (1):67-73 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This piece challenges Michael Ruse on three points: (1) The charge that Christian myth and doctrine are incredible fails to take into account the scholarship that has clarified the genre to which myth belongs and its function. (2) Naturalistic explanations, like Ruse's, have fully as much difficulty dealing with questions of purpose and evil as religion does. (3) The concept of “deception” has a number of inherent problems that Ruse fails to consider, of which the chief is that it requires a certainty about truth and falsity that Ruse cannot and does not claim to possess.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,532

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ruse's Darwinian meta-ethics: A critique. [REVIEW]Peter Woolcock - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
A defense of Darwinian accounts of morality.John Lemos - 2001 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (3):361-385.
Response to My Critics.Michael Ruse - 2002 - Zygon 37 (2):457-460.
Response to Michael Ruse.Kenneth F. Schaffner - 1995 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 16 (3):317-319.
Michael Ruse's Design for Living.Robert J. Richards - 2004 - Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):25 - 38.
Response to Michael Ruse.Pat Duffy Hutcheon - 1998 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 17 (2/3):159-162.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
44 (#358,513)

6 months
3 (#967,806)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?