Customer Reviews

The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates

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

 

 

With due recognition of the importance of a son's opinion, Michael Ruse's book is simply good, not the best. I'd recommend two others for different reasons. DAWKINS VS GOULD by Kim Sterelny because it's much more succinct without losing the substance of the debate; also THE DARWIN WARS since it's written by a journalist for a general audience, and it doesn't assume readers have a biology background.

This last point is the main criticism I have with THE EVOLUTION WARS especially since the book bills itself as "A guide to the Debates". Ruse writes in a style that is not easily accessible by non scientists. In fact he is on record as saying that the "popularizers" of science do their field of study a disservice. If that's the authors view he should not be surprised if the vast number of popular science readers do this book a disservice by ignoring it.

It's the authors fault, and it's also a pity because Ruse is by far the most knowledgeable of the three. What he does better than the others is put the debate into it's historical setting, tracing the origins right back to Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather). As a philosopher, Ruse is also the best equipped to deal with the nexus of religion and science. The book is ultimately rewarding but it's a bit of a slog. I got annoyed in parts where the opportunity for "simplification" and clarity for a general reader presented itself, but Ruse instead chose to express his scientific prowess.

This book does a wonderful job of presenting a wide variety of debates that have surrounded evolutionary theory from the time of Darwin to the present. Ruse makes his own positions known, but tries to present all sides fairly, and for the most part does it well. He is especially interesting in his dissection of the underlying philosophical concerns that have driven the discussion of evolution.

In spots the writing rambles somewhat and can become unclear. After going to great lengths to define what is meant by "evolution," Ruse makes no such effort to define his term, "secular religion," which recurs frequently throughout his discussions. In other places, the author veers off in a new direction before finishing his point. For example, while addressing Philip Johnson's criticism of the "methodological naturalism" of science, Ruse slides off into the question whether one can be a methodological naturalist and still believe in God. It's a fascinating and worthwhile discussion, but it leaves out what seems to me to be the more important question in response to Johnson: can one do science at all without assuming that physical events have predictable physical causes?

For serious students of the subject, this book will not be the last word. For general readers it opens up a window on the rich field of evolutionary science and the debates that have surrounded it. The suggested additional reading at the end of each chapter should help anyone who is interested in pursuing a topic further.

It helps to have some basic background in biology to understand this book, but no extensive knowledge is necessary.

Michael Ruse, a Professor of Philosophy at FSU, and a veteran of the evolution-vs.-creation tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of the American public provides an excellent overview for the layman of the intellectual debates that have raged between supporters and opponents of Charles Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, commonly referred to as evolution.

Ruse also highlights and elucidates the points of view of the various types of evolutionary scholars, including the classicists, neo-Darwinists, sociobiologists, etc., and offers his own perspective regarding the relative merits of each of these approaches.

The book is meticulously referenced, and each chapter includes comprehesive lists of additional reading material for those interested in more in-depth study of the particular chapter's subject matter.

Overall, this book is an invaluable resource to those interested in understanding the current status of evolutionary thought among scientists, and how that thought (pardon the pun) "evolved" over the past two and a half centuries.

...to provide an INTRODUCTION to the multiple debates spawned by the introduction of Darwinian theory...it is clear, concise, and interesting...more to the point it provides excellent references to allow readers to further pursue those debates and controversies which they find most interesting.

The facinating debate occurred between the Marxist biologists Stephen Jay Gould and R. C. Lewontin versus the progenitor of Sociobiology E. O. Wilson, thoroughly and scrupulously documented by sociologist Ullica Segerstrale in "Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate," (Oxford University Press, 2000) is the place to begin.

If ever (and it has repeatedly been "ever') science is the handmaid of ideology (the "social Darwinists," eugenicists, Lysenko, Boaz, Mead, the Harvard Marxists, almost ad infinitum), science typically serves ideological purposes. Whoever doubts that science is the "means" of ideological "ends," this recent debate illustrates it clearly.

The "non-debate" between creationists and Darwinians is precisely that: NO debate. Evolution is an incontrovertible fact, even if Darwin's "five" evolutionary theories remain "theories." But, so does the "theory of gravity" remain a theory, so let's keep our eye on the "debate." It should be noted that Darwin's 1859 theories, by Karl Popper's "falsifiable" criterion, have not been falsified. Indeed, genetics, embryology, molecular biology, paleontology, etc. have repeatedly vindicated Darwin's original theories. The creationists' petard does not register in the real world.

Besides the "sociobiology" debate (which Wilson won), evolutionary insights are now reorienting medicine, psychiatry, psychology, literary theory, philosophy, and despite ideological entrenchment and resistance, even some of the "soft sciences" like political theory, sociology, anthropology, religion, etc. Whatever "wars" may seem to appear, they are confined to the ideologues defending their turf, not with respect to either evolution or Darwinism. The State of Kansas and the Dover School District and the Scopes' Trial do not constitute a "debate" other than a debate over intelligibility and science (vs. Revelation). Using Gertrude Stein's phrase, "there's no there."

"Debate" exists only in some people's imagination in hopes of defending the indefensible. Outside the "resistance," a paradigm shift is occurring, which, I suspect, is why the obstinate resistance insists on "debating" an already-established fact, and why biologists have decided not to "bother." Like the "false beliefs" of Marxism, Platonism, Freudianism, Christianity, postmodernism, someone's "ideology" has already been gored, and the defeated want to insist a "debate" still exists, if only to preserve their ideology against the facts.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, biblical fundamentalists, and GWB insist a "debate" still exists. Ideologues are like that, but it does not mean it is true. Ideology is always the rascal rogue that finds "facts" at best inconvenient, worse, detrimental. But keeping the "debate" alive is itself further evidence of an adaptive strategy to survive, when they are no longer "fit." Selection, natural and artifical, eliminate the weak and unfit, but like all selection, time is its principal factor, while "debate" is the only impediment to inevitability.

This series of snapshots of the Great Darwin debate (which actually begins in the generation before Darwin) proceeds from the period of Cuvier/Lamarck to Gould/Dawkins, and episodically covers the key incidents of the development of Darwinism. Less detailed than the author's older, but still useful, The Darwinian Revolution, this account poses the question of why there is such a long debate. The reason must be the weakness of the theory proposed by Darwin. To that we should add the misleading scientism of the Synthesis appearing from Dobzhansky et al, and the book gives a revealing glimpse of paradigm formation in action. The problem is the public cannot see behind the math to the limits of population genetics, hence the limits of the theory itself. It seems that Gould is consciously or not trying to overthrow illusions here, yet still remains mired in the basic assumptions of the basic belief system.

Talk about darwinian wars sounds to me as old and outmoded as talk about World War II and even the cold war. Darwinian weapons of random mutations and natural selection or even stasis and punctuated equilibrium have led us not to a meaningless, pointless and purposeless universe, as darwinians enjoy saying (as if they had discovered the wheel) but to a meaningless, pointless and purposeless scientifc paradigm, unable to deal with the "complex specified information" in nature (William Dembski), the "irreducible complexity" of biological systems (Michael Behe) and the "computational structure" of the universe (Stephen Wolfram). What's more, darwinism never really got to refute biblical creationism (contrary to what the vast majority of uniformed people think) as it has been proposed and defended by Douhane Gish and John and Henry Morris or R. Humphreys. You may be surprised if I am saying this. But is is just plain fact. Darwinism never refuted creationism. It just assumed that creation never took place, which is something very different than a true and convincing refutation. All the darwinian arguments about evolution assume it existed, rather than demonstrate it existed. They are circular arguments that only convince the already convinced. This means that, as Donald Rumsfeld is reforming the Pentagon and getting it ready to fight new wars, so there should be a profound reform in the realm of scientific paradigms. I am convinced that the future "scientific wars" will be about information, intelligence and even creation. Intelligent design theorists and even biblical creationists seem to me more prepared in the long run to fight the new scientific wars ahead of us than darwinism. This outdated paradigm looks more and more like a kind of "cold war relic".

yeah dad your book is the best!