Most Helpful Customer Reviews
29 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good, Balanced Defense of Evolution from Critics., October 1, 2006
This review is from: Darwinism and its Discontents (Hardcover)
At a time when Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are releasing books that are very anti-theistic in nature, a book like "Darwinism and It's Discontents" is timely, indeed. It's point is to offer a staunch defense of evolution and evolutionary theory (in the process, doubting that creationist theories hold any water), but at the same time, doing so in a way that does not NECESSARILY equate (as Dawkins does) evolution with atheism. In other words, this is truly a book defending evolution AS evoluiton, rather than getting into the ancillary (so Ruse thinks) theological debate.
And defend evolution he does - using very jargon-free and clear arguments and evidence. Each chapter addresses a particular "beef" that some have with evolution - is evolution really a scientifica theory?; Is it proven by the physical evidence?; Could it have produced life from non-life (abiogenesis)?; What, if anything, are the moral implications of evolution?
All of these, and more, are very well explored. Now that I have trotted out the questions, let me give a preview to the answers found in the book (though you will still have to read it to get Ruse's arguments for them):
Is evolution a scientific theory? Yes; while it started out more as a philosophic speculation, it has since become a very testable (verifiable and falsifiable) theory that can also be considered, in a sense, fact.
Has physical evidence shown evolution to be true? We all know that on a micro level, hardly anyone would deny this. But, says Ruse, we also have evidence of transitional forms, archeological evidence that fits perfectly into the evolutionary paradigm, and strong evidence as to how evolution physically works.
Can evolution produce life from non-life? Frankly, we are not sure yet, but a 'yes' answer looks promising.
What are the moral implications of evolution? Ruse trods through countless attempts by theorists as diverse as Spencer, Huxley, and E.O. Wilson to draw moral implications from evolution, but Ruse's final analysis suggests that no "ought" can be derived from an "is" without, itself, being a moral judgment. Ergo, evolution only has moral implications if you want it to. (And, yes, nonbelieving Ruse suggests that one can - very carefully, of course - be theistic and believe in evolution!).
All in all, a very well written and moderate defense of evolution. Unlike books by Dawkins, Harris, and, to a lesser extend, the philosopher Dan Dennett, this book is one that a thoughtful religionist could read without pulling one's hair out. In other words, Ruse is the unique type of author who can, at once, defend evolution deftly while also being able to speak maturely and non-condescendingly to critics of evolution
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Adjudicating points of contention, March 1, 2007
This review is from: Darwinism and its Discontents (Hardcover)
In a previous book, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (2001), Michael Ruse reconciled the ways of Christianity to the fact of evolution. He did so by allowing for a largely symbolic reading of the Bible and by defining Christianity as a system of belief about matters beyond the reach of Darwinism, such as our having souls and being made in the image of God and being given heavenly or hellish eternal life in realms not subject to biological evolution.
Here Ruse adjudicates various disputes between Darwinism and its critics and among Darwinians themselves on such matters as natural selection (especially this), punctuated equilibrium, group selection, drift, reductionism, etc. Unfortunately I don't think he adds much that is new to the discussion, and his torturously "correct" navigation between believers and non-believers left this reader annoyed. Spill the beans! For example, state it clearly: Christianity that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with Darwinism. Period. Add: Those who appreciate the fact of biological evolution cannot accept that man was made in a Christian God's image or that a personal God is, and has been, shaping events on this planet.
Ruse writes from the point of view of a historian of evolutionary science and as someone sympathetic with what I might call progressive Christianity, a Christianity that knows that the world was not made in six days and that the earth has been around for a few billion years and that God does not have a belly button or even an alimentary canal or a need for either. Ruse is an expert on Darwinism and its contemptuous history and he understands the major issues very well. He is the kind of writer who bends over backwards to be fair to his opposition, such as creationists and Intelligent Designers, as well as atheists like Richard Dawkins or agnostics like Stephen Jay Gould. He is also the kind of writer who equivocates a lot, whose instincts are to find common ground and to further responsible and honorable dialogue, which is the strength of this book.
He begins with a chapter demonstrating the Charles Darwin really does deserve the credit he gets for being the first to understand natural selection, which is the very heart and soul of evolutionary theory. He goes on to argue for "The Fact of Evolution" (the title of Chapter Two) while giving a hearing to creationist/ID people like Alvin Plantinga and Michael Behe. He follows with a discussion of the some of the problems surrounding "The Origin of Life" (Chapter Three). He ends the book with chapters ten, eleven and twelve on "Philosophy," "Literature," and "Religion." There is some interesting material on the epistemological ramifications of biological evolution and whether we can construct some sort of morality from Darwin's blueprint. (No!) He analyses Ian McEwan's contemporary novel, Enduring Love (1997) in terms of its relationship to Darwinism, and he dregs up some raucous anti-Darwinian quotes from George Bernard Shaw and recalls Samuel Butler's Erewhon (1872) amid a gloss about the differences between machines and organisms. In-between there is some interesting pro and con about familiar issues within evolutionary theory.
Ruse's style is a little long-winded and (typical of philosophers) weighted down with careful qualification--yet, at the same time, he is capable of wit and sharp expression. This is the sort of book that will appeal to those readers with philosophic, literary and historical inclinations. This is not a book for biological scientists or for those looking for cutting edge discussions of problems in evolutionary theory.
Three things:
(1) I am not enamored of the term "Darwinism" as a synonym for biological evolution. It is too restrictive both in terms of the ideas and manifestations of evolution, but also in terms of the historical record.
(2) While Ruse understands that the facts about our biological nature revealed by evolutionary biology do not necessarily support any kind of "ought" about how we should behave, he doesn't seem to realize (see pages189-193) that we can understand and forgive on a biological level while on a societal level we must throw the violent criminals into jail. There is no "very fine line" between knowledge of our biology and our ethics, and "Darwinian approaches to humankind certainly" do not "cross that line." (p. 193) "What is" is one thing. "What should be" is another. People crossing that blunt and clearly marked line do so on their own.
(3) Little light and certainly no resolution are brought to bear on the problem of evil and free will that Ruse addresses beginning on page 284. He brings the matter up because some people think that seeing the world from the view of biological evolution somehow supports evil in the world and argues against free will. The problem of evil is the result of the belief in a personal God who is all powerful and at the same time all compassionate and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Furthermore, the question of whether we have free will or whether it is just an illusion we cannot help but believe, is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Know Evolution by the Opponents It Keeps, October 18, 2006
This review is from: Darwinism and its Discontents (Hardcover)
Everyone knows that there are religious objections to Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution. Those who make them are the loudest of objectors to natural selection these days, but there have, in fact, been other sorts of objections, from philosophers, from students of social studies, from literary authors, and even some from biologists and those within the community of evolutionary studies. None have made much of a dent in the overall understanding of evolution, according to _Darwinism and Its Discontents_ (Cambridge University Press) by Michael Ruse, an authority on the history and philosophy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It has not mattered much that the theory has spawned many objections; Ruse starts his book by quoting Daniel C. Dennett, who says that Darwin would get his award for the single best idea that anyone has ever had, and Ruse agrees. Nonetheless, this is a brisk if academic examination of who has been making the objections and why. Since evolution has yet to fall, and is still the cornerstone of biological understanding, learning what its detractors think can only increase our admiration for its power.
Darwin, after _The Origin of Species_, wrote specifically about the descent of humans, turning to sexual selection as well as natural selection. His fellow discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, insisted that many human features, including our big brains, could not have come from natural means, but Darwin was sure that humans were part of nature's processes. People accepted evolution overwhelmingly, but they rejected Darwin's explanation of evolution by natural selection, finding that some force beyond simple adaptation (whether natural or divine) was necessary. It was not until the genetic laws of Mendel were rediscovered in the twentieth century that population genetics was advanced as the internal mechanism that would allow for variation and selection to occur. Ruse, in a chapter titled "The Fact of Evolution" not only summarizes the evidence for the theory (of course, Ruse has to explain that "theory" does not mean "hypothesis") which Darwin gave, but also the evidence which genetic studies now give. One chapter is an explicit rebuttal of the title of a famous creationist book _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_, and shows that by multiple methods, fossils, cladistic analyses, molecular clocks, and other independent means of verification, evolution is as soundly based as gravitation. This is not to say that all evolutionists agree, but the creationists are wrong to take such disagreements as meaning that evolution is all in a shambles. Ruse reviews limitations and restrictions on the theory, and also the frauds and hoaxes that have marred its history.
Ruse has a chapter on the effects of evolution on literature (Shaw hated it and blamed Darwinism for World War One) and on philosophy, where it can be shown to support a commonsense morality rather than merely the "social Darwinism" that has been properly criticized ever since those with power have used natural selection as a justification for that power. A final chapter on religion makes clear that Darwinism is only a trouble for biblical literalists; other Christians may, for instance, read Genesis with a deeper meaning about our imperfect natures and our obligations to a creator and his creation. "None of this," Ruse says, "is in any way denied or obscured by Darwinism," although trying to impose concepts like original sin onto genetic inheritance strike him as "rather strained". Creationism's new embodiment in "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, but it cannot lead to any new scientific predictions, as evolution has successfully and repeatedly done, and it "flunks just about all the epistemic criteria for good science." Finally, Ruse concludes that Darwinism has no answer to give about the presence or absence of gods, but we should be wary of any explanation that purports to explain everything. That's not what evolution does, and this is not one of its weaknesses, but a strength. Through the efforts of its discontents as Ruse shows them in many fields, the discipline of evolution is revealed as far stronger and more reliable than if it had no opposition.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|