Response to the Commentary: Pro Judice

1. How does Ruse's second remark, that saying is not the same as saying religion, fit into the overall story? Why is the difference between a negative argument (creation-science is not science) and a positive argument (creationscience is religion) important here? 2. Why does Ruse think that Laudan's strategy is inadequate? (remark three) 3. What are the three questions that Ruse feels must be addressed? (Hint: Did you read my overview? These questions are listed there!) 4. Ruse clearly believes that not all endeavors can be clearly separated into science and non-science based on his five stated criteria. (He gives psychoanalysis as a problematic case.) How does he make the case that there are, though, some times when his criteria suffice? How successful is his argument? 5. Ruse tries to show, using various passages from the Bible and from creationist writings, that creation-science clearly fails based on his five criteria. Does he succeed in making his case? 6. What point does Ruse make with regard to kinds as used in creation-science? 7. Does Ruse ever really address his third question in this writing? (Answer: Not really, at least not directly.)