Customer Reviews

The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The preceding review of this book is so silly, glib and off the mark that it requires some form of response. First, note that the title of the book is the Cambridge COMPANION to The Philosophy of Biology, which is indicative of its purpose as a supplementary collection of scholarly essays, each of which sets out to discuss particular contemporary issues internal to the philosophy of biology, of which there are many. It is not a book of biology. It is not a book about Philosophy with a capital 'P'. It is a book about biology and it's philosophical commitments. The idea that this book does or must take as its primary task the debate between Creationism/Intelligent Design and Evolution, or more generally the tension between biology and religion is absurd. This is not an introductory or popular book on evolution, biology, philosophy, Darwinism, or even the philosophy of science specifically. Nor should it be taken as weighing in (with anything approaching consensus) on issues associated only with Darwinism contra the previous reviewers assertions. The evolution/creationism debate, contrary to some popular opinion, is NOT the sine qua non of biology as a science, nor the philosophical issues associated with it. If nothing else this book illustrates that fact (The essay by Pennock being the only one in the collection that discusses the debate specifically). It is an anthology specifically tailored to a sub-discipline of the philosophy of science, concerned with identifying and evaluating conceptual assumptions and methodological practices in biology, as well as its historical and cultural development amongst other things. It has no unifying theme beyond this specificity of subject; it is intentionally broad in scope so as to touch on a variety of issues within the discipline. In other words, and apparently this bears repeating, it is about the philosophy OF biology; if you were previously unaware that such a discipline exists as a robust research program in contemporary philosophy, you are not likely to enjoy this book (yet!). It is a collection of specialized scholarly material and should be treated as such, and to that end, it succeeds. Some familiarity beyond book store browsing in both the philosophy of science and biology is presumed, and there is nothing clandestine about this. For those looking for an introduction to this discipline consider an introductory text along the lines of Sterelny and Griffith's 1999Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series) , or Sober's 2000Philosophy of Biology, 2nd Edition (Dimensions of Philosophy). Readers interested in more 'grandiose' or less specialized scholarship, or for an introductory biology or philosophy text should obviously look elsewhere. If, alternatively, you are in the market for another book that spins some variant of "God smells and Darwin rules; QED", or you think that this is the only real question of interest regarding biology, do look elsewhere. Perhaps in a deep and remote cave.

The reader is bound to ask after reading this book, "What did the editors have in mind when they chose the title?" I would go further and ask what agenda they had in mind when they selected the articles presented? "Adaptation", which is a major aspect of evolutionary science was not written by an evolutionary biologist. Hence it was not surprising that the writer concluded with this statement: "...far from expressing enmity between modern biology and natural theology, explanatory adaptationism is testimony to the fellowship between the two traditions." Similarly, the writer of the article on "Population Genetics" concluded with no conclusion. Another philosopher tackled the biological study of "Macroevolution, Minimalism, Radiation" and choosing a narrow aspect of "paleobiology" takes us, from the writer's point of view, to a dead end. The same conlusion, or rather, non-conclusion, was the end of Jane Maienschein's "What is an 'Embryo' and how do we know?. Ronald Dworkin, and Lawrence Tribe have written some very helpful articles and essays on the beginning of life. The selection of the articles under the grandiose name of "Philosophy of Biology" was off the mark because neither Philosophy nor Biology was clearly elucidated, and where questions of philosophy were raised, stronger opposing views were not sought. So Robert Pennock concluded his article by saying, "Did God create nature, or did nature create God? Suffice to say, neither biology nor religion is yet in a position to claim the final answer." This conclusion is fine if both sides were fairly represented. They were not.

It will be apparent by now, that the thrust of the book was to neutralise the statements of Darwinism so that theology and creationism is given an escape route. The answer to religion is not biology alone, but the impression that this book seems to create is that the flipside of the religious coin is biology. That is clearly misleading. On the other side of the religious coin is found reason, evidence, science (including biology), and all the inherent contradictions in religious texts. Perhaps the editors were bent on being so conciliatory - "Never a cross word was exchanged between us" as the editors wrote about their own contributors, that they deliberately excluded pointed but more accurate and profound writers of philosophy and biology. This review does not criticise the conciliatory approach; one ought always to be polite even to those whose views one disagrees with. The criticism is against the vagueness of purpose. If the book intended to show that all life was possibly created by a force that no one knows or can identify, then that is all it needs to say and no biologist will disagree with that statement. If it wishes to say that that force is or can be a personal, supernatural being that takes an interest in its creation, then that statement needs to be justified. There is nothing in biology to refute. The onus lies with the maker of that proposition. Biologists and philosophers have an intellectual duty to expose any allusion and hint of such mysterious creator, sometimes coming in various disguises such as "intelligent designer", "god", "creator" etc where no precise definition of its features and nature has been offered for proof or disproof. In such situations, there is nothing wrong in taking a strong stance. As Abraham Lincoln said, "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."