For his rhetorical criticisms to have bite, David Stove focuses on a particular vision of Darwin's own thought and, later in the book, on the less circumspect pronouncements of Richard Dawkins. In both cases, Stove denies that he has constructed `straw men'. He wants his criticisms to strike at the core of Darwinian thought, both in its historical form and in the guise of current `Neo-Darwinism'. While his targets may not be made entirely of straw, they certainly do not seem central - it seems entirely likely that a proponent could reject Stove's characterisation and still feel a `mainstream' Darwinian.
In the early essays, Stove makes central to Darwin's thought the claim by the Reverend T.R.Malthus that populations tend to increase to the limits of their food supply. This idea is said to have been to key to Darwin proposing an explanatory theory - suddenly the change in species evident in the fossil record could be explained in terms of natural variation and Malthus' principle. Stove then delights in showing that populations are not constrained solely by food supply; he cites Malthus's own revisions to the theory, adding first the `biological' opposition of famine, war, and pestilence, and finally `moral restraint'; and, with rhetorical relish, he states the obvious in that humans do not, as a matter of fact, reproduce as frequently as well they might - and `hunger' is not the only restraint here. Stove's writing has wit, but it is also repetitive and verges on the condescending.
Stove also feels that `genunine' Darwinian thought is committed to a continuous and literal battle between conspecifics. If blood is not being spilt, then, for Stove, this is evidence that what is `predicted' by Darwinism is false. With this characterisation of Darwinism in mind, Stove then labours the point that we, along with other animals and plants, are not constantly tearing at each others throats. Many pages of faintly humorous examples follow.
In these essays, Stove has shown that Darwinian thinking, at least when deployed in the ways Stove cites, is a poor explanation of the everyday behaviour of humans, and for that matter most organisms. But Darwin's theory is one that hopes to explain the evolution of the species, not everyday behaviour. The fact that its explanatory limits stop well short of everyday behaviour is a point well made, but not that interesting a point - certainly it is not surprising, even by the lights of the theory itself.
When it comes to tackling Richard Dawkins, Stove aims his criticism at the imprudent extension of Darwinian explanation to human motivation. His strategy here is analogous to that mentioned above. In `The Selfish Gene' Dawkins makes himself a ripe target for such criticism, and the blows surely fall. Stove pillories Dawkins' use of anthropomorphic language in discussions of genes, along with Dawkins' disingenuous promises to translate such ideas back into the `respectable' language of science; Stove also gives a plausible psychological explanation as to why such interpretations of Neo-Darwinism are popular, drawing analogies with other `puppet theories' of human motivation or `demonologies', positing a perverse inclination to, evidence be damned, regard humans as `fundamentally' selfish, and acknowledging the startling effect the discovery of genes has had on the human psyche in general. As an addendum, the theory of memes is summarily dispatched, although with less rigorous argument that might be expected - Dawkins' own reservations, contained in a paragraph of The Extended Phenotype, are, ironically, more damning than Stove's invective.
Stove's discussion of `inclusive fitness' theory is more telling. He highlights the explanatory limitations of such a theory by demonstrating that many events it would predict do not in fact occur, often real life presenting the very opposite actuality.
Ultimately, the book reads as a warning not to take Darwinian theory as explanatory beyond certain boundaries. For fossils, and some of the baffling adaptations seen in insects, plants, and animals, the theory offers an explanation where no alternative exists. As some kind of guide as to how a human life is in fact lead or, worse still, how it should be lead, Darwinian thinking tells us precisely nothing. In sum, this is Stove's point and, unfortunately, obvious though it be, it seems like it is one that needs making. Perhaps thanks to its repetitiveness, lack of argumentitve rigour, and its sarcastic tone, the book is an entertaining read - although to actually extract arguments which one can use in one's own discussion is a much more onerous task.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
awz1
Darwinism does not apply to humans
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on May 26, 2018Faysal Guled
Essential read for any Darwinians
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on October 19, 2021
