Mr Ruse is a creationist nothing more really needs to be said.
For those who haven't followed this debate, What Ruse is saying is Newton was a looser, His Ideas about gravity have been tweaked, so therefore we shouldn't honour his achievement.
Now that is clearly silly and so is this article.
What Darwin did was give us a scientific give or how life went from simple to complexity we see today. The driver for this evolution is natural selection. Ruse tries some word play to try and justify his view and does a poor job at it. I would hope the moderators of this site will look to publish a mainstream view of Darwin’s work

Grim wrote:

One person may add to our humanity by their perception, words and actions. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, a Palestinian Jew, his perception and actions have been passed down over millenia for each of us to make what sense we may of the story. If Jesus wrote anything, the texts no longer exist. His is a story that has been told and retold for its human and spiritual content. I expect it will still be remembered, long after Darwin's 300th birthday.

Dear Grim,

I think it would be an appropriate celebration for Darwin's 300th birthday to adopt a new Calendar. His 300th birthday should be 1 January 300 AD (after Darwin).

With respect, David f, I did not write that quote. It came from Sir vivor.
Kenny, I think you need to read the article to the end. Mr Ruse is definitely not a creationist; he's not refuting Darwin, merely observing that his theory has -appropriately- evolved.
Sur vivor, I thank you kindly for your gentle rebuke. I mentioned neither dogmatism or faith based experience (whatever that is). What I meant to convey was that whereas science texts are constantly being rewritten, added to, revised and sometimes thrown out, the Bible, Torah and Koran are treated in the exact opposite fashion.
The preface to my copy of the 'Celebration' version of the New Testament states in part:

"...In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions,during each of which the translation was examined for it's faithfulness to the original language..."
I believe the Koran, in particular, is regarded as the literal words of Allah, as revealed to Mohammed, and therefore any changes would be blasphemy.
I realise this is all 'textual'; but I must ask: if you don't believe the texts (Gospel) about Jesus, where does your knowledge of him come from?
I'm not aware of any evidence of any culture adopting Christianity, that wasn't exposed to the texts.

<< As Philip Johnson once predicted, that Darwin’s ideas will one day soon go the way of other 19th Century thinkers, Marx and Freud. These two were also considered ‘scientific’ in their day but are now put in the category of outmoded philosophers. >>

I imagine that's Philip E. Johnson, born-again Christian and founder of Intelligent Design. Who better to cast a neutral, critical eye over scientific theory?

He's wrong, of course. Not just about science, but about history: Freud's theoretical work underpins modern psychiatry and is taught in every university; Marx is still the reference point for all social democratic political theory.

What Johnson is trying to say is that that their work is redundant because it been modified and reviewed over time. By that reasoning, the Wright brothers have contributed nothing to aviation because modern planes are so unlike the Wrights' prototype.

I appreciate your efforts to disguise Biblical fundamentalism as reasoned discussion, but you're not going to convince anyone that the sensible alternative to scientific enquiry is to throw up our hands, say "God must have done it", and march confidently back into the Dark Ages.

I have never read Freud, but I thought the situation was that he is regarded as the trail-blazer in the field of modern psychology, but on the other hand, that all of his main tenets are no longer current in psychology?

To describe Marx as a scientist is laughable. His entire political theory rested on his economics, and his economics has been refuted over and over and over again. He was first rejected in academe by the economics departments, even in the Soviet Union.

Without this basis, his survival in the other schools of the humanities is better explained by fashionability, and the legitimisation of their parasitism, rather than by any scientific explaining power it has. For example the reason he claimed his theory was 'scientific' was, cop this, because he purported to discover that the socialist order would supersede the capitalist order by inexorable historical 'law', without anyone actually doing anything about it.

If Marx laid the 'theory' underlying social democracy, this is nothing more than a spurious justification for legalised thieving. Majority rule can legalise it: it cannot make it good or practical. Perhaps anti-social democracy would be a more appropriate term.

One of the things I admire about Darwin was the chapter entitled Objections to the Theory. In this, he takes on board all the objections, follows their reasoning, and shows evidence and reason against them. All the objections that the Creationists raise, that I can see, were exploded in this chapter. The reason he took so long to publish, is that he spent 20 years assiduously collecting objections.

Darwin did not deal with objections by personal argument, as Marx did, nor try to ignore or misrepresent them, nor argue by assuming what is in issue: the universal methods of Marxians.

No surprise that even to this day true science can not support evolution. It does however give the god deniers a self righteous world view where they feel they don't have to give an account to their Maker. Missing link 5005 is bound to show up again among the fervent religous. It will however turn out to be another fraud. The big bang theory is the most ridiculous unscientific theory ever invented in perverted minds. It would be ultra amusing if it was not sending so many fools to hell.