Customer Reviews

RC Series Bundle: Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears (Routledge Classics)

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

 

 

Mary Midgley, a philosopher, applies her extremely sharp mind to the idea that evolution, as it is expounded in the popular science press by eager biologists, can in some ways be interpreted as a religion. By religion we mean of course the standard ones such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc.

Rather than actually laying out in a strictly defined way the characteristics which make up the religious view, something which is very difficult given the vast differences in the previously mentioned cases, she approaches the subject by analysing some of the typical `literature' in the popular science press on evolution which express their views in a highly dogmatic fashion: for example Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Jacques Monod and so on. Gradually she lays bare the inherent faults in each of these texts by noting how not only that in most cases they state views which are not supported by strict science but in fact express metaphysical views which have the ring of science with all of its evidential weight. At times she shows that these opinions portray the same faults as those they wish to get rid of eg: the religious, vitalistic, animistic or metaphysical view.

Midgley has the ability to analyse very carefully what is stated and see things the general public could easily skip past in their enthusiasm. This book demolishes all of these pseudoscientific fantasies although its writing style is sometimes heavy going and is not really suited to the lay public. This book is, I believe written more for the interested scientist who has already read some of the foregoing literature and wishes to get a deep analysis of these things to fathom their relevance. This she does does ably although one feels that throughout she does not express a clear and direct point of this analysis but rather a series of essays on several subjects which have some sort of coherent structure. This is the only problem with this book and one feels that no real definite conclusion has been reached.

Nevertheless, Midgley is worth reading for her truly impressive ability to seek out faults which often lie hidden in the material she analyses and are quite subtle and not at all obvious until she points them out. It's good someone has done this to provide a clear head in all the plethora of the popular science literature, which in general, is not up to any sort of serious study of the state of science as it is today. In this case there is no chance one can easily dismiss her analyses as the wafflings of creationists or vitalists.

_Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears_, republished by Routledge in 2002, is a revised edition of a book by philosopher Mary Midgley which attempts to reveal the excesses and overbold prophecies of certain biologists (and other scientists) in their attempt to turn evolution into a religion. Midgley begins by noting that "I had been struck for some time by certain remarkable prophetic and metaphysical passages that appeared suddenly in science books about evolution, often in their last chapters. Though these passages were detached from the official reasoning of the books, they seemed still to be presented as science." Before going further though, it should be made clear that Midgley does not appear to be against the theory of evolution (properly formulated); indeed, she dedicates her book "To the Memory of Charles Darwin Who Did Not Say These Things", but rather to certain irresponsible statements and inferences drawn from it by certain scientists. Furthermore, Midgley is certainly not advocating Creationism (the belief in a literal "seven days") or Intelligent Design. (She references the work of the early Christian father Origen in this respect, showing the problematic in taking the account in Genesis to indicate a literal "seven days".) What this book is is simply reflections on some of these confusions made by scientists themselves and musings on the various philosophical underpinnings and implications of the theory of evolution. For a more detailed and convincing attack on the Darwinian account, one should consult the works of the Australian philosopher David Stove, particularly the book _Darwinian Fairytales_. Stove is a self-described "skeptic" in the tradition of David Hume and adheres to a common-sense approach in refuting the claims made by Darwinists, and furthermore, Stove is deeply indebted to this work by Mary Midgley in his own writings. Nevertheless, the writings of Midgley (while appearing to reject the traditional religious worldview) call into question many of the aspects of the modern scientific endeavor. Reactionary scientists and humanists generally will likely scoff at such ideas, but their refusal to actually consider the implications of their own researches (and especially the implications of their own religious prophecies) just serve to indicate how deeply in need of such questioning they are. It should also be pointed out that while this book was originally written as an essay in 1985, some of the claims may appear dated. However, since that time the practice of making overbold religious prophecies by noted scientists has only grown worse.

Midgley begins by arguing that unlike Darwin's account of the theory of evolution (supposedly, although Darwin himself had elements of both of these in his account), two distinct fallacies have arisen in the interpretation of this account: the "Social Darwinist" distortion (perhaps best expressed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" invented by Herbert Spencer) and the Panglossian or "Escalator Fallacy" (the naïve belief in progress, first put into form by Lamarck). Midgley also comments on the underpinnings of Darwin's own writings (showing the influence of his extracurricular readings on his worldview) and the apparent conflict between religion and biology (which is believed to arise out of a fear of biology). These two fallacies will continue to appear over and over again in the writings of noted Darwinists, despite the claims of Darwinists to have eliminated both of them from their accounts once and for all. Midgley next considers the supposed competition between religion and science (showing how these alleged demarcation disputes actually arise from a fallacy made by both the overzealous religious and scientists). Midgley considers for example the debate over evolution between Bishop Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"). According to the popular understanding of this debate, it is maintained that Wilberforce simply waffled and appealed to emotion. However, as Midgley shows this is not what occurred; instead, it should be noted that Wilberforce called for evidence (which at the time Huxley could not have provided) and actually presented a coherent argument (being somewhat of a scientist in his own right). Huxley was also the first to consider the idea of science as a paid profession and not merely a gentlemanly pursuit. Midgley then considers the question of evolution as religion. She explains how it is useful to speak of such things as Marxism as religion, and that no one argues that (alleged) non-theistic religions such as the original form of Buddhism are in fact religions, thus it should also be useful to speak of evolution as a religion. Midgley then goes on to consider the so-called "Escalator Fallacy", showing how this fallacy lies at the heart of much of the prophesying made by scientists. Indeed, much of the appeal of the uncovering of human genetics is rooted in the idea of the creation of an "Omega man" or a "superman" (often amounting to a supposed increase in intelligence). This idea of the "Omega man" was first proposed by the religious Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, but it was later co-opted by atheistic scientists who became overly enamored of the fallacy of progress. Midgley also quotes extensively from the works of Nietzsche in this regard (making note of the role of eugenics in the breeding of the "superman"). Midgley considers some of the problems involved in genetic engineering and quotes such Darwinians as E. O. Wilson to illustrate the "Escalator Fallacy" in their thinking. Midgley also shows how the ideal of the "superscientist" is maintained as the goal of human evolution. (The undertones to such utopian thinking are indeed ominous.) Following this, Midgley considers various remarks made by the physicist Steven Weinberg and the biochemist Jacques Monod, which amount to a form of existentialism, mimicking Sartre. For instance, Monod maintains that the universe is a meaningless and dangerous place in which man lives as an alien and that man's only solace is to be found in science (why science should provide a source of redemption is of course never adequately explained). Such remarks are certainly religious. Monod makes war against "animism" which is what he beliefs to be the fallacies of progress and Social Darwinism; however, his own statements retain traces of both. Midgley next considers some of the antitheses which are alleged to exist between science and other forms of thinking. She shows how much of this type of thinking is highly problematic. Following this Midgley turns to the fallacy of Social Darwinism. Obvious cases of this are to be found in the writings of Spencer, the American eugenicists, and Adolf Hitler, but Social Darwinism also continually creeps up in the writings of the sociobiologists. Social Darwinism amounts to an affirmation of the Hobbesian ideal, a view of nature as "red in tooth and claw", and support for the philosophy of selfishness. For example, there is the statement of noted sociobiologist M. T. Ghiselin, "Scratch an `altruist' watch a `hypocrite' bleed." Further, Social Darwinism has frequently been used as a justification for the most rampant excesses of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. Midgley considers the question of selfishness in the writings of Dawkins (theorist of the "selfish gene") and Wilson (who claimed that life only existed so that DNA could make more DNA). Midgley shows how such claims regarding selfish genes are anthropomorphic and ill-founded. (A better demolition of Dawkins is provided in the work of David Stove.) Midgley then goes on to show the limits of individualism and the dangers of progress and the excesses of Enlightenment humanism. Midgley also makes some interesting remarks on rights and duties (the idea of "duty towards oneself"), the possibility of animal rights, and the need to rethink our position towards other species, ourselves, and the environment.

The thinking of Midgley in this book is important, because it reveals the religious underpinnings of many of the modern scientific notions (regarding progress and utopia or dystopia). Scientists who refuse to think critically about their endeavors run the risk of becoming inhuman. And, the damage that has been done by predatory excesses (both of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism) should not be underestimated. These are important words of wisdom that should be heeded especially by those who are least likely to listen.

'Evolution as a Religion' was written in response to the extremism of popular science that has risen from the evolution/creation debate. Midgley is concerned with the clearly dogmatic views that some scientists hold, often resulting in worldviews that are compelling, but do not have the force of data behind them and should not be presented as science. Midgley deftly points out these failings, and along the way she brings up many philosophical implications of evolution.
While its title and theme may scare off evolutionists who prefer pro-evolution literature, I point out that Midgley's purpose is not to prove or disprove evolution. She never steps into the realm of actual evidence concerning evolution; her purpose is to expose the 'bad science' that has become a plague in the scientific community. Hence, I believe the book serves as a tool to keep scientists' feet firmly planted on the ground, and not get carried away with the fallacies on both sides of the debate.
This is the only Midgley book I have read; my exposure to philosophy is somewhat limited, but I found this book fascinating. I agree with the previous reviewer that the writing is heavy at times, so its slim appearance is deceiving--it may take some time to finish. But its density results in a thought-provoking and enriching experience. It is well worth your time, no matter what your beliefs.

My own convictions are both religious and rational, so I picked up this book with a little trepidation. The issue of evolution (and its wider social and philosophical significance) has been captured by both irrational creationists and pseudo-scientific dogmatists, each with their own axes to grind, and I find their polemics tiresome. This book is a welcome relief. Creationists looking for comfort will be disappointed, but Midgely also identifies the implicit and often ridiculous assumptions that underpin pseudo-scientific proposals for human improvement being advanced under the guise of biology, and puts her finger on the risks of placing science at the service of unscientific social engineering. These proposals corrupt both science and society, and will ultimately undermine public support for the real good that bioscience can do. She puts this problem down to the the narrowness of modern scientific training, and the failure of many scientific proponents of these schemes to understand the philosophical and social dimensions of their proposals. Paradoxically, this narrowness has also made scientists more susceptible to creationist ideas than their counterparts in the humanities (including theology). It's a thought-provoking investigation of the problems that excessive specialisation and intellectual arrogance has brought about. So how should our education systems be altered to fix it? I don't know, but I hope that will be the subject of another book as good as this one :-)

Mary Midgley is a respected philosopher known for her defense of moral obligations toward animals. I'm not sure what her intent with this book was as I don't think she is an advocate of Intelligent Design (sic) but that is what comes across.

I have two main objections; one is that Midgley defines 'faith' in such a way that it can mean you have 'faith' that a clock indicates the time of day. The other is that she confuses or confabulates 'evolution' with 'natural selection.' That is often a common error of ID advocates, but I'm a bit surprised with Midgley.

Charles Darwin's 'theory' concerns the process of organic evolution, the mutability of species, not the fact. Evolution, while not universally accepted, was pretty well known when Darwin did his work. What he contributed is 'how' it happened, not that it did. I found it very curious that Midgley does not seem to have even made an attempt to read some basic (i.e. freshman introductory) material on the topic. I simply ran out of times where she made very basic errors of fact.

I'm not sure why this is considered a 'classic' as it is off track in my opinion.

This is a philosophy book. There is almost nothing about natural selection and not much more about religion, just plenty of standard philosophy loosely connected to a condemnation of current western culture and its supposed pseudoscience sustenance. Midgley uses the term 'evolution' to mean the philosophizing of scientists and science writers. As religion too is human philosophizing it is hardly difficult to make the two converge.

This 'evolution' Midgley citicizes as being too human-centred. As there is nothing more human-centred than the social sciences, humanities and religion and this 'evolution' is really philosophy then it is an empty criticism. Only the physical sciences look beyond humans but this is unacknowledged.

She is, though, correct in saying that natural selection is not about progress up a ladder nor about a hostile, doom and gloom world. Other than this her grasp of biology is suspect eg she asks how genes can be selfish when they die when the cells they are in die!!!!! No wonder the excellent work of people such as Dawkins is beyond her grasp if she does not understand the connection between body cells and germ-line cells.

Though I generally agree with Midgley's concerns about competitive greed and the destruction of our planet I think she is wrong to blame science, pseudoscience or sociobiology and to disconnect people in modern western culture from their ancestors and their cousins in other cultures. She is clearly out of her depth when it comes to biology, at least.

With a statement that evolution is the creation myth of our age plus the eye-catching mistitle of this book Midgley is far more guilty of hyperbole and melodrama and potentially far more misguided and damaging than, for example, Dawkins when he used the 'as if' selfish gene perspective.

There are a few interesting discussions of works by scientists and philosophers but, especially for the science writers she criticizes, I would very much recommend people read the books themselves and not simply accept Midgley's views on them.

This is not only the best book available on the dispute between science and religion, it is quite possibly the only one worth reading.

Midgley seems to argue in this book that evolution (as represented in popular conscience) can be viewed as a kind of religion, with its own mythology, prophecies and epistemology. So far so good.

The problem is, Midgley does not really understand evolution. Or science. Or scientific method. Or the difference between scientific publication and popular press. To her these all are forms of human opinion, on the same level as any other popular beliefs and discourses. The book might have been more interesting if it explored how scientific theories and debates arrive into the popular opinion, what are their vehicles, how are they reflected, presented and distorted. That could have been a very interesting view of the place of science in society, and of how scientists' human aspirations affect what they say.

Instead, Midgley mostly beats about the bush criticizing points made by biologists, philosophers and journalists, half daisy picking them to support her point, half accusing them of not understanding the real scientific theory of evolution. Which is ironic, since she does not seem to be too versed in it. Some of her bloopers are very telling, like her protest that genes cannot be "selfish" because they die in somatic cells. She did not understand the difference between the mass propagation of information in the pool and the fate of a particular copy of that information. If she did, she'd realize that if sacrificing some copies of a gene helps increase the collective strength of all copies in the pool, this sacrifice is economically profitable. In fact, it required no work from her to realize it: she might have *noticed* that point made several times in Dawkins' book. But she blissfully ignored the point which might have helped her understand the whole book. She had preferred to criticize irrelevancies like the word "selfish" in its title, and present it as proof that evolution has its own mythology propagated by evolutionists while pretending that it is science. In fact, she dwells much more on discussing social sciences (and things like social darwinism) than biology, quotes overwhelmingly more editorials than scientific papers, and prefers to dismantle far-fetched speculations made by scientists than their actual rigorous theories.

The book overall is vacuous and wordy. It makes no distinction between science, religion and popular press - in fact, it seems at times that the only connection Midgley has to science is popular press.

When she laments the exclusion of unfalsifiable kinds of thinking from science, accusing Thomas Huxley of it personally, one can really see the sloppy, wishy-washy kind of thinking Midgley herself has to offer. I am not sure if her repeated attempts to blur the border between mythological and scientific thinking are due to honest ignorance or to perniciousness, but that's what this book mostly amounts to. It's a sort of "opinion" thing itself, pointing finger and saying "you are no better" but providing only anecdotes and poorly digested popular reading as support.

But it is certainly not an attack on science either, because it is so vague, uninformed and irrelevant.