Ophelia beat me to it
Ruse argues that evolutionism has often constituted a ''religion'' itself by offering ''a world picture, a story of origins, and a special place for humans,'' while its proponents have been ''trying deliberately to do better than Christianity.''He's falling right into the creationists' trap, giving them ammunition when they make the fallacious claim that evolution is "just a theory" or, even worse, just another "religion." For someone who claims to understand science, how can he say that? What are we supposed to do, not call creationist pseudoscience for what it is when we see it? (As I've said before, I don't have a problem so much with the concept of intelligent design, but rather the attempt of fundamentalists to have it taught as "science," when it is in fact not science. If they wanted to teach it as philosophy or religion, they'd get no argument from me.) And what's wrong with trying to explain the origins of life "better than Christianity"? Any religion that rejects out of hand new knowledge that science produces isn't worth following. Even the Catholic Church, one of the most conservative and slow-to-change institutions in existence, has managed to reconcile itself with evolution. If Pius XII and John Paul II could, do it, then why can't ID advocates?
End of rant.