Customer Reviews

The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man

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

 

 

I read this book through twice. Not because it was difficult, it is actually very easy reading considering the depth of some of the topics covered. I read it twice because after the first time I was amazed that things I thought I already knew about had become so much clearer in my mind, and I was wondering how he did it !

Brown cuts right to the most interesting aspects of each controversy in evolutionary theory, makes each side clear, and all the while places each controversy into larger perspective in a coherent narrative from the first page to the last. It would be very difficult to read this book without coming away bubbling with ideas about it; which is a way the author describes Richard Dawkins' books; but I think it applies just as well to Brown.

I was particularly impressed with how the author managed to make his presentations of some very technical points so very clear without resorting to pedantry at any point, and at the same time gave a vivid picture of the personalities and their motivations without reducing them to charicatures or elevating them to icons. The power of Andrew Brown's straightforward conversational writing is very misleading and sneaks up on you, he teaches a great deal here without you realizing you are being taught.

The journey here beings appropriately with the very thing that makes sociobiology most uncomfortable: the startling mathematical discovery that selfless behavior could in principle evolve through natural selection. If even our lofty ideals are the product of an algorithmic process in nature, our view of ourselves is fundamentally tainted somehow, a conclusion of no small importance as Brown dramatizes with the tragic suicide of theorist George Price. The important thing that Brown recognizes that many authors miss is that evolutionary theory doesn't tell us we are selfish, it tells us something much more horrible ... that even when we act selflessly it is a result of our animal nature, not a matter of transcending our animal nature.

There is an excellent presentation of the different sides of several important sociobiological controversies, and oen of the best discussions of memes and their implications that I've ever come across.

Most notably, Andrew Brown does not just point out where he disagrees with some of the ideas, but offers positive alternatives to persue that avoid the pitfalls. He offers the Aquatic Ape theory as a perfect example of good adaptationist thinking whether it is true or not, and offers David Hull's excellent "Science as a Process" as a foundational text for a potential true science of memetics.

If you have any interest at all in the application of evolutionary theory to human beings, I think this book is required basic reading. Another excellent choice covering much of the same territory in a different way is Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould." That gives a more technical coverage of the controversies for those who want better depth. Also, for a more complete coverage of the personalities and early history of sociobiology, try "Defenders of the Truth" by Segerstrale.

Evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and evolutionary biology in general are subjects whose temperatures are way above comfortably warm. You can get scorched by plunging in unprepared. You guarantee this if you decide to move beyond "nature vs nurture" and extend the debate to the moral, ethical, and (scalding now) - the religious implications of science.

Brown's opening chapter hints at where he intends to go with the argument. He discusses the sad ending of George Price's life. Price was a brilliant biologist, who through work on the evolution of altruism, developed a mathematical formula that proved that human nature was grounded in selfishness. Brown says that "through algebra, George Price had found proof or original sin." Price's story illustrates the changed nature of THE DARWIN WARS as it is now less about scientific differences but more about philosophical issues. Brown argues that there has been a shift in interest in what is now considered important. Thus his subtitle that this is "The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man". This is the framework into which he places the competing scientists. Brown creates two camps - the "Dawkinsians" and the "Gouldians", named after of course Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Brown does a reasonable enough job of explaining the differences between the two groups. He then spends a chapter discussing the adaptive benefits of religious belief and whether or not they are "viruses of the mind" He says they're not.

I give Brown credit for being balanced in his analysis and incredibly open to contending views. I think his book is unique in this respect. His divergent philosophical positions with well known thinkers on this subject have led to strong words. Give Brown full marks for publishing Daniel C Dennett's comment about Brown's work - "what a sleazy bit of trash journalism" - right there on the book's cover jacket. That's way too strong a remark, but overall the book does fall down a bit in making it's case for a philosophical interpretation of the "wars". Also when discussing religion, Brown makes a hash of the distinction between popular beliefs and theology.

Ever since biologists such as Edward O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins first popularized the idea that human psychology might be explainable in Darwinian terms, they encountered fierce opposition, not only from sociologists brought up on the "standard model" whereby the mind is a blank slate, but also, and less obviously, from other biologists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who saw evolutionary psychology as genetic determinism. The battles between different groups of biologists, whom Andrew Brown characterizes as Dawkinsians and Gouldians (while recognizing that nobody will be happy with these names: "this won't please anyone involved"), were remarkably vicious, full of ill will on both sides, and, for anyone who was not emotionally engaged in the struggle, entertaining to read about. Andrew Brown has risen warmly to the challenge, and has written a very readable book about them.

He is a journalist, and has a journalist's ability to write clearly and well, but, far more than that, he has a scholar's ability to check his facts and to get them right, and to present opinions that he does not necessarily agree with in a fair and balanced way. He interviewed many of the participants, and appears to have established friendly relations with everyone he spoke to. He has also studied the biological and philosophical aspects with care, and his opinions are worthy of respect. Only occasionally does he lapse into unsupported assertions, as, for example, when he writes "Is the difference in the striping of Burchell's and Grevy's zebra a result of different selection pressures in the different parts of Africa where these species originated, or, as is more likely, was there simply a selection for striping to which the genotypes of the two species responded differently?" With his "as is more likely" he seems to be assuming the point that he ought to be arguing.

Brown devotes several pages to a sympathetic examination of Elaine Morgan's views on the aquatic origins of humanity, ultimately coming the conclusion that they cannot be completely correct, but nonetheless treating them with far more respect than some of her critics have done. He also almost manages the superhuman feat of presenting Mary Midgley in a favourable light -- she of the "up till now I have not attended to Dawkins, thinking it unnecessary to break a butterfly upon a wheel."

As Brown notes, the Darwin wars have been quite separate from the battles with creationists, all of the participants he writes about being evolutionists, all of them regarding themselves as being in the tradition of Darwin. All of them, therefore, have been non-religious, and in some cases on the Dawkinsian side extremely hostile to religion, with an almost religious, and certainly fundamentalist, fervour in their attacks on Christianity. Brown describes himself as an atheist, albeit one who worked as the religious correspondent of a newspaper in the years before undertaking the book, but he considers that intolerant atheism can be as harmful to human freedom as intolerant religious fundamentalism. By the end of the book, therefore, one feels that although he is more of a Dawkinsian than a Gouldian he is far from being wholly on one side or the other.

It is interesting to compare The Darwin Wars with Defenders of the Truth, another book written on the same subject at about the same time by Ullica Segerstråle. The two books cover much the same ground, but Segerstråle's is much longer (about twice the length, if one allows for the larger amount of text on each page), and is written from the point of view of an academic sociologist rather than that of a journalist. She shares Brown's concern with seeing both sides of the dispute, with getting her facts right, and with presenting the different points of view in a fair way. Both books are excellent, and both are essential reading if one is interested in the subject. Neither mentions the other, but they were being written at the same time, and published at much the same time, so neither author is likely to have had access to the other's work while writing.

A journalist writing on science embarks on a perilous journey. Preparation requires knowledge of the path, the likely hazards, and how to avoid awkward detours. When the trail passes through a disputed area, every risk is multiplied. In this instance, the dispute is interpreting how Darwin's idea of natural selection works. Andrew Brown makes a valiant effort to learn the route, chart the perils and keep to the centre. Even his vivid writing skills can't prevent him failing on nearly every count. Granted, the best informed writers have stumbled on the same trek. Brown, however, misses the whole point of the dispute.

His Foreward states that "Darwinian explanations" about the world have led to acrimonious scientific debate. The remainder of the book tries to outline those debates and their participants. The tragic story of George Price, a transplanted American who died in London in 1974, reveals the issue. Price had reformulated William Hamilton's earlier work on altruism. Nature, it seemed, offered little reward for altruism. The knowledge sent Price first into insanity, then suicide. The Hamilton/Price work brought Richard Dawkins to develop his idea of "the selfish gene." Brown struggles to comprehend Dawkins' idea that strings of molecules "desire" only to replicate. He turns to Dawkins' appearance and antecedents to relieve his confusion. He scorns Dawkins use of metaphor, labelling him "vulgar", then fills
this book with his own. Dawkins becomes the label for thinkers in one side of Brown's Darwin Wars - the "Dawkinsians." Although admitting its weakness, Brown retains the identification throughout.

The Dawkinsians are countered by the allies of Stephen J. Gould - "the pope of paleontology." Brown is clearly in awe of Gould's writing ability and reputation for accuracy. Unfortunately, Brown's veneration shields him from another of Gould's talents - the building of artificial targets for scathing assaults. Brown is more correct in his labelling of "Gouldians," since his quotes of Gould, Lewontin and Rose follow the long-established pattern. Lewontin characterized E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology as "bad science," even in the face of later work supporting it. Brown notes that Gould, Lewontin and Rose stood aligned against the rising science of evolutionary psychology. There's another aspect of Gouldians Brown favours. Brown, an athiest who writes for religious journals [i'm not making this up!], sympathizes
with Gould's "respect" for religions as opposed to Dawkins' argument that "any religion is irrational." Ultimately, when Brown takes an capricious detour later in the book, grants Gould and his "position" acceptable.

The detour is into the realm of philosophy. It's bad enough for a religion writer to attempt to write on science. Brown's excursion into science-cum-philosophy is wholly unwarranted. All the more so when he openly admits his inadequacies. Gould's most incisive critic isn't Dawkins, it's philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. Brown confesses his failure to understand Dennett's "Consciousness Explained," although that excellent book is but thinly related to Brown's theme. The real thrust is Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," which Brown doesn't understand either, but he fails to state that as openly. Brown claims DDI is a "freshly ground axe," instead of a surgically precise instrument eviscerating Gould's misuse of evidence. Because Dennett isn't a biologist, Brown accuses him of a "let's you and him fight" attitude, running from the fray after initiating it. Anyone who has read Dennett will never forgive such a slander. As a counter to Dennett, Brown gambits British philosopher Mary Midgley "in her large, sensible shoes." Besides her footwear, Midgely contributed only "her gift for the eviscerating phrase" to the debate. Her science, even Brown admits, was "confused and ignorant." Perhaps Brown is correct in assigning her to the Gouldian faction.

Brown fails to directly come to grips with the fundamental issue. How did natural selection produce thinking humans, and what, if any, is their role in the universe? After his tour of the biological battleground, he uses a cute chapter title, "How the Meme Raths Outgrabe" to again display his faulty understanding of Dawkins. Brown uses Dawkins' idea of the "meme," a replicable idea, to introduce a discussion of "morality." This was the issue that drove Price to suicide, Brown reminds us. Is the universe benevolent, offering some hope in the face of injustice? Or is it malign, a condition which brings Midgley again forward to declare as "madness." Brown, however, fails to consider the proper alternative - the universe is indifferent. If he'd read Dennett instead of maligning him, Brown might have caught the point.

There's some value in this book in the introduction of some issues and a few of the personalities. If you wish to understand why the Darwin Wars came about, however, you must turn to the sources. A compromise option is Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth. Although excellent, its focus is on the American participants, which, thankfully, omits Midgley.

I think, first off, we ought to put away the idea that it is somehow wrong or remarkable that Brown is a journalist writing a book about science.

The extent to which a good journalist (and Brown is one) cannot sufficently grasp the issues in modern Darwinism is precisely the extent to which no popular books ought to be written about it at all, by anyone.

If an intelligent journalist working full time on the issue can't correctly understand it, what hope does the casual reader have?

The fact is that most of the issues really aren't all that tough, and where things do get complicated, the issues are often philosophical and interpretive. Areas where scientists have not shown themselves to be particularly adroit (as Brown notes). There is plenty of writing out there by scientists whose credentials in the lab are impeccable and whose command of the facts I wouldn't dare to question.

But when some of these folks quit the job of fact gathering and start interpreting and sketching out implications . . . well, let's just say that words & phases like naive, wishful thinking, overly ambitious and even stupid start coming to mind.

Brown (though he briefly forgets which sex is XY) generally seems to have his facts straight, he digs up little-told portions of the history of the Darwin Wars, and has an interesting take on the personalities involved.

Brown's philosophical sympathies lie with the Gould camp (emphasizing the limits on what science can really say with confidence about things like society and culture), but he presents a pretty balanced view nonetheless, very solid on the sometimes rather half-baked philosphical underpinnings of scientific interpretation at its most exalted (and perhaps most dangerous) level.

A valuable book.

Count the number of times Dawkins et al are quoted, mentioned, or have misunderstandings about their ideas extensively "clarified" by the author.

Then count the number of times Gould et al are quoted, etc.

I haven't done it, but I will bet $5 that the ratio is at least 10 to 1 in favour of the Dawkinsians. Got to page 150 of 200 or so pages and really started to wonder, "Okay, when does the presentation and defense of Gould's ideas start?".

As a member of the "general public", apparently the target audience for this book, I learned very little about Gould, other than personal details and repetition of dreadful insults.

This was a pretty good book in that it discussed a variety of interesting personalities and ideas invovled in the *intra* evolution debate (by which I mean, the debate amongst evolutionists, not between them and non-evolutionists), including Dawkins, Gould (who, the book argues, is much less well respected in scientific circles than the public would be led to believe), Price, Hamilton, Midgely, selfish genes, evolutionary ethics, sociobiology, evo. psychology, memes, etc. etc.
The major drawback to the book, I felt, was that it often felt directionless and not well organized. Even now, I have a hard time thinking of a central point or thesis for the book. it was more like just some interesting stuff thrown together, loosely related. also, I found his writing style difficult to follow at times and - again, just my own taste - just not so enjoyable. (I really disliked how he'd seem to back one side of a controversy and then do a 180. it was annoying, particularly the way he did it. sounded like he was trying to make nice to everyone and it disturbed the flow of the book.)

In short, I think that people already familiar with the ideas and people the book discusses will enjoy it, and others less so, though it does provide a good springboard for jumping into a variety of topics.

I found it strange that while every book on evoloutionary science has lot many reviews, this book, till i started, had none. More so, since all evolutionary science followers need to go through a book of this kind. So here it is, what i thought would be the very first review but turned out be second:

The book, as the title suggests, is about the debate in evolutionary science. The debate is the debate between followers of Darwin, Dawkinsians v/s Gouldians as the author puts it, and *not* the creationists v/s evolutionists debate. In other words, the book traces debate about to what extent Darwinian view of life is justified: is it really a universal acid, as Dennett opines, and can this "acid" dissolve Gould's Spandrels.

It's is essential for the reason that, to an extent, it tells what shaped the ideologies of the two camps, who popularised whose work, what are the bones of contention, what are the stakes involved and what are drawbacks of the proposed solutions.

One must read it, or any other such book, after one has been through one, two books to have broad level picture of the debate.

The writer is not an authority on evolutionary science. In fact he is a journalist who once won Templeton award for the best religious correspondent in Europe, which to me is bit paradoxical considering the fact that he claims he is an atheist. Lack of credentials didn't prevent him from evaluating scholars' works, however. In the end he ends up doing a decent job for lay readers...

The book has 10 chapters; here is briefly what these chapters talk about:
Work on altruism. Cheat detection, Adaptive thinking. Genetic determinism v/s cultural determinism. Memetics, and Dawkins' "vulgar" abuse of the term selfish - i wish Dawkins readers whose personal lives were upset by _Selfish Gene_ were aware of this ... the book is loosely structured - one pitfall of writing in conversational manner. Midway during each chapter the digressions makes you loose the central thought. Further, the book is not for mature readers in this field.

The title of this book may be a little bit confusing, especially to readers in the USA.
I just want to note that this book is not about any type of debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design. I picked it up thinking it was some type of history about the "controversy." People looking for information about that "debate" will have to look elsewhere.