The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man (Paperback)

Brown cuts right to the most interesting aspects of each controversy in evolutionary theory, makes each side clear, and all the while places each controversy into larger perspective in a coherent narrative from the first page to the last. It would be very difficult to read this book without coming away bubbling with ideas about it; which is a way the author describes Richard Dawkins' books; but I think it applies just as well to Brown.

I was particularly impressed with how the author managed to make his presentations of some very technical points so very clear without resorting to pedantry at any point, and at the same time gave a vivid picture of the personalities and their motivations without reducing them to charicatures or elevating them to icons. The power of Andrew Brown's straightforward conversational writing is very misleading and sneaks up on you, he teaches a great deal here without you realizing you are being taught.

The journey here beings appropriately with the very thing that makes sociobiology most uncomfortable: the startling mathematical discovery that selfless behavior could in principle evolve through natural selection. If even our lofty ideals are the product of an algorithmic process in nature, our view of ourselves is fundamentally tainted somehow, a conclusion of no small importance as Brown dramatizes with the tragic suicide of theorist George Price. The important thing that Brown recognizes that many authors miss is that evolutionary theory doesn't tell us we are selfish, it tells us something much more horrible ... that even when we act selflessly it is a result of our animal nature, not a matter of transcending our animal nature.

There is an excellent presentation of the different sides of several important sociobiological controversies, and oen of the best discussions of memes and their implications that I've ever come across.

Most notably, Andrew Brown does not just point out where he disagrees with some of the ideas, but offers positive alternatives to persue that avoid the pitfalls. He offers the Aquatic Ape theory as a perfect example of good adaptationist thinking whether it is true or not, and offers David Hull's excellent "Science as a Process" as a foundational text for a potential true science of memetics.

If you have any interest at all in the application of evolutionary theory to human beings, I think this book is required basic reading. Another excellent choice covering much of the same territory in a different way is Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould." That gives a more technical coverage of the controversies for those who want better depth. Also, for a more complete coverage of the personalities and early history of sociobiology, try "Defenders of the Truth" by Segerstrale.

Brown's opening chapter hints at where he intends to go with the argument. He discusses the sad ending of George Price's life. Price was a brilliant biologist, who through work on the evolution of altruism, developed a mathematical formula that proved that human nature was grounded in selfishness. Brown says that "through algebra, George Price had found proof or original sin." Price's story illustrates the changed nature of THE DARWIN WARS as it is now less about scientific differences but more about philosophical issues. Brown argues that there has been a shift in interest in what is now considered important. Thus his subtitle that this is "The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man". This is the framework into which he places the competing scientists. Brown creates two camps - the "Dawkinsians" and the "Gouldians", named after of course Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Brown does a reasonable enough job of explaining the differences between the two groups. He then spends a chapter discussing the adaptive benefits of religious belief and whether or not they are "viruses of the mind" He says they're not.

I give Brown credit for being balanced in his analysis and incredibly open to contending views. I think his book is unique in this respect. His divergent philosophical positions with well known thinkers on this subject have led to strong words. Give Brown full marks for publishing Daniel C Dennett's comment about Brown's work - "what a sleazy bit of trash journalism" - right there on the book's cover jacket. That's way too strong a remark, but overall the book does fall down a bit in making it's case for a philosophical interpretation of the "wars". Also when discussing religion, Brown makes a hash of the distinction between popular beliefs and theology.