Customer Reviews

Darwinism and its Discontents

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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

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.

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.

Ruse is one of the most sophisticated and nuanced authors on the implications of evolutionary biology, and I think this is one of his best works because of both its particularly high readability and the characteristic care Ruse takes with each topic. Ruse delves into each topic with thoroughness and care and without the doctrinaire dismissals sometimes found from both supporters and critics of modern evolutionary biology.

Fans of passionate defenders of Darwin like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett will likely be annoyed in many places by Ruse's extraordinary and sincere efforts to consider opposing arguments, and his focus on philosophical implications as much as scientific details.

However this is a book that will appeal particularly to intellectual moderates and other thoughtful readers who want to think through the ideas for themselves and are not afraid of a little philosophical and scientific complexity. Ruse will definitely make you think as he raises the many profound issues touched upon by the implications of Darwin's ideas.

This is not the best book to read if you're looking for an account of evolutionary biology or for an easy concise introduction to Darwinism and its detractors. It is, on the other hand, probably one of the very best and most comprehensive accounts of modern biological thinking vs. the recently proposed alternatives, and is thanfully relatively free of technical jargon.

What a satisfying book! For a while it seemed that we were stuck with two extremes: (1) Creationist/ID efforts to discredit Evolution or (2) rabid scientists (like Dawkins & Crew) who sought to imbue Evolution with a religious tone, insisting that those who accept it must also adopt an religion-bashing atheist. Worse, those latter efforts have turned the discussion on its head, moving it out of the scientific world into the culture wars of politics and religion. Besides, someone's position on faith is so scientifically irrelevant in the first place - science rises and falls on evidence, not on belief.

This is a good middle ground that does NOT take arguments from both sides and fuse them in a confusing mush of conflicting ideas. The defense of Evolution is broad, deep and thorough (although it is not textbook complexity). At the same time he gives air time to those from the other side (ID mainly) who cannot accept the fact that life arose from non-life and that natural selection could bring about such complex organisms as worms (you thought I was going to say "people" - LOL). Ruse not only explains the mechanical workings of Evolution (abbrevieated) but is somewhat of an expert on the history of the idea. This part was, in many ways, one of the most satisfying as he traces Darwins's thought process, suppositions and conflicts. One can almost see the great man pondering these things on his way to church or as he putters in his nice English garden. Parenthetically, Darwin was totally against any war on religion and stated this numerous times.

While it is true that there are philosophical and religious implications of Darwinism, troubles immediately rise when it is used outside biology. That old fandango, Social Darwinism, was once widely accepted by "progressives" as a scientific way of measuring societies and individuals. The new emphasis on biosociology and biopsychology follows the same pathway by proposing that social constructs be formed around biological theories.

The most obvious example of conflict - and one he handles well - is religion. He does this however by diluting the underpinnings of many a religious person, treating miracles as allegory, supernatural events as parables and religious history as suspect. What he retains is the most important part in the real world - its ethical tradition. Although I find it difficult to understand how one can continue practicing traditional faith once the stories, miracles and history are removed, it is certaintly their right to do so without being insulted or savaged. Altogether a very good read.

I found this to be quite a useful discussion of Darwin which gets much more into the underlying scientific and philosophical dimensions than do other introductory books. I can't say I understood all of the points the author was making (despite a rather articulate and cogent writing style), but I absorbed enough to at least understand what some of the various arguments relating to Darwin involve. This is not an attack per se on intelligent design or religion even for that matter--in fact one of the most interesting chapters deals with religion in a most even-handed fashion. Especially well done are the initial overview chapter on "Charles Darwin and His Revolution," followed by very detailed and sometimes challenging chapters on topics such as "Humans," "Literature" and the "Facts," "Path" and "Cause of Evolution." The author's discussion of "Dishonest Science" was particularly helpful since so many scientific claims and counterclaims seem to be flying around relating to evolution--and as usual, the discussion is extremely balanced. The author has written many books on evolution and is quite expert on the topic at all levels of complexity. His ability to explain all these concepts to those less versed is to be commended. His bibliography is of great value, and the book comes in at around 300 pages (including helpful illustrations and diagrams). A valuable addition to the library of anyone interested in getting more deeply into Darwin and his revolution.

The book is a survey of people in various walks of life who object to Darwinism. It is interesting overall and brings up a lot of topics. Personally, some of the people mentioned are not of interest. The author knows a lot of presumbably well-respected but mentally confused professors in the academic world who dislike Darwinism, for example, but I really don't care as long as they are safely locked up in schools of "higher learning" where they can't do much harm.

On occasion, I wished that topics would be treated in more depth. But, you have to keep in mind that the book's central topic is "Darwinism's Discontents". There is a fair amount of scientific content, but the main purpose is to dicuss why various people dislike Darwinism, and why their objections are misplaced.

When the book began discussing ideas from sociobiolgy (genetic or evolutionary basis of behavior), I thought it lost some focus. Natural selection can provide a historical explanation of why certain behavior is affected by genes, but the issue of whether behavior is affected by genes in the first place is a separate question.

Not a title to keep you awake at night, but it still beats television. While the complete evolutionary flow chart will be forever up to argument, it is a difficult concept to sanely disparage. The beginning of life, to me at least, is a far more loaded issue. Ruse's writing style, while not obtuse, reminds me of the theolgical texts, which seemed to run constantly in circles, that I was once forced to read. But, the author puts forward a serious defense of the subject that can be understood by the folks who were not biology majors. A good selection for public and academic libraries and a good read for the interested layman.

The current issue of Newsweek magazine ways that about have of the people in the United States believes that the universe is 6000 years old. That fossils like the dinosaurs were put there just to test one's beliefs, that the light coming from distant galaxies is somehow being created while it's on its way here, that there is no need to conserve energy because the selected few are going to be taken up bo heaven by Jesus sometime in the next fifty years or so while the rest of the population of the earth dies.

If someone actually believes these things as a matter of faith with no room for questioning, there is little that any book can do to change their minds.

On the other hand, this is the most complete analysis of the arguments against Darwin and evolution that I have ever seen. And with each argument the author clearly points out that experimental evidence is against such an argument. To anyone with an open mind who is interested in what the evidence shows, this is a supurb book. It basically takes one argument against Darwin per chapter and discusses it completely. If anything, he leans almost to far in accepting the arguments. Still at the end, he explains the best thinking that scientists backed up with experimental evidence have to justify evolution.

I will admit I haven't finished this yet but I'm not very impressed with the argument.
The author expects to use 'theoretical skeletons' as a basis for factual findings.
He explains that even Darwin was not satisifed with the concept of natural selection as causal.
After an extensive explanation of Darwin and his contemporaries he asks us to 'jump forward to 1959'. Hold on, what happened in the missing century?
Bemoaning the lack of actual evidence, the author asks the reader to adopt 'inductive evidence' and uses an example from a turn of the century mystery novel as evidence of how inductive evidence works. It works if you accept several other concepts of evidentiary findings that are justified by several convoluted multi-line turnaround sentences that defy dissection.
Then he uses vestigal appendages like the coccyx and the appendix to infer that humans share much in common with other species as 'inductive evidence' for common ancestral lines. I contend that, as humans evolved into two legged locomotion, would not a tail aid in this difficult balancing feat much like a tail benefits monkeys. If humans lose their tails somewhere along the line, would that not argue against natural selection. Same with an appendix, his other example. Why would natural selection favor creatures with an organ that can get inflamed, bursts, and kills them in favor of creatures withut such treacherous organs. How the author supports natural selection with these examples is not explained.
I am reading this in order to fairly compare the Darwinists with the discontents. I read the author's arguments supporting Darwinism and find his arguments weak and self serving. The author cites his earlier work as authority quite often. Hardly a good practice.