The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (Paperback)

~ David L. Hull (Editor), (Editor)
Key Phrases: evolutionary psychology, evolutionary psychologists, moral grammar, Maynard Smith, United States, Ernst Haeckel (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"...there is much for a biologist to learn within the covers of this book. Each chapter...is long enough to provide a substantial introduction to each topic without losing the reader in the details." - David A. Morrison, Systematic Biology

Product Description

The philosophy of biology is one of the most exciting new areas in the field of philosophy and one that is attracting much attention from working scientists. This Companion, edited by two of the founders of the field, includes newly commissioned essays by senior scholars and up-and-coming younger scholars who collectively examine the main areas of the subject - the nature of evolutionary theory, classification, teleology and function, ecology, and the problematic relationship between biology and religion, among other topics. Up-to-date and comprehensive in its coverage, this unique volume will be of interest not only to professional philosophers but also to students in the humanities and researchers in the life sciences and related areas of inquiry.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 552 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (October 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521616719
• ISBN-13: 978-0521616713
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #722,250 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Neither p nor b, December 25, 2008

By	Hande Z (Singapore) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

The reader is bound to ask after reading this book, "What did the editors have in mind when they chose the title?" I would go further and ask what agenda they had in mind when they selected the articles presented? "Adaptation", which is a major aspect of evolutionary science was not written by an evolutionary biologist. Hence it was not surprising that the writer concluded with this statement: "...far from expressing enmity between modern biology and natural theology, explanatory adaptationism is testimony to the fellowship between the two traditions." Similarly, the writer of the article on "Population Genetics" concluded with no conclusion. Another philosopher tackled the biological study of "Macroevolution, Minimalism, Radiation" and choosing a narrow aspect of "paleobiology" takes us, from the writer's point of view, to a dead end. The same conlusion, or rather, non-conclusion, was the end of Jane Maienschein's "What is an 'Embryo' and how do we know?. Ronald Dworkin, and Lawrence Tribe have written some very helpful articles and essays on the beginning of life. The selection of the articles under the grandiose name of "Philosophy of Biology" was off the mark because neither Philosophy nor Biology was clearly elucidated, and where questions of philosophy were raised, stronger opposing views were not sought. So Robert Pennock concluded his article by saying, "Did God create nature, or did nature create God? Suffice to say, neither biology nor religion is yet in a position to claim the final answer." This conclusion is fine if both sides were fairly represented. They were not.

It will be apparent by now, that the thrust of the book was to neutralise the statements of Darwinism so that theology and creationism is given an escape route. The answer to religion is not biology alone, but the impression that this book seems to create is that the flipside of the religious coin is biology. That is clearly misleading. On the other side of the religious coin is found reason, evidence, science (including biology), and all the inherent contradictions in religious texts. Perhaps the editors were bent on being so conciliatory - "Never a cross word was exchanged between us" as the editors wrote about their own contributors, that they deliberately excluded pointed but more accurate and profound writers of philosophy and biology. That, as a result, rendered this book superficial and inadequate. This review does not criticise the conciliatory approach; one ought always to be polite even to those whose views one disagrees with. The criticism is against the vagueness of purpose. If all that the book seeks to do was to show that the possibility that all life was created by a force that no one knows or can identify, then that is all it needs to say and no biologist will disagree with that statement. If it wishes to say that that force is or can be a personal, supernatural being that takes an interest in its creation, then that statement needs to be justified. There is nothing in biology to refute. The onus lies with the maker of that proposition. Biologists and philosophers have an intellectual duty to expose any allusion and hint of such mysterious creator, sometimes coming in various disguises such as "intelligent designer", "god", "creator" etc where no precise definition of its features and nature has been offered for proof or disproof. In such situations, there is nothing wrong in taking a strong stance. As Abraham Lincoln said, "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."