Darwinism and its Discontents

There is much to be learned from this book. It is extremely well annotated. Michael Ruse quotes others liberally, giving credit where credit is due. To others he extends the benefit of doubt. Ruse is careful not to offend those who discontend. We applaud him for that. In less than 300 pages of paperback press, Ruse presents both sides of the Darwin question. He does a remarkable job in recreating Darwin's thinking, He also illustrates well what biological science is really about.

The book is a survey of people in various walks of life who object to Darwinism. It is interesting overall and brings up a lot of topics. Personally, some of the people mentioned are not of interest. The author knows a lot of presumbably well-respected but mentally confused professors in the academic world who dislike Darwinism, for example, but I really don't care as long as they are safely locked up in schools of "higher learning" where they can't do much harm.

On occasion, I wished that topics would be treated in more depth. But, you have to keep in mind that the book's central topic is "Darwinism's Discontents". There is a fair amount of scientific content, but the main purpose is to dicuss why various people dislike Darwinism, and why their objections are misplaced.

When the book began discussing ideas from sociobiolgy (genetic or evolutionary basis of behavior), I thought it lost some focus. Natural selection can provide a historical explanation of why certain behavior is affected by genes, but the issue of whether behavior is affected by genes in the first place is a separate question.

I found this to be quite a useful discussion of Darwin which gets much more into the underlying scientific and philosophical dimensions than do other introductory books. I can't say I understood all of the points the author was making (despite a rather articulate and cogent writing style), but I absorbed enough to at least understand what some of the various arguments relating to Darwin involve. This is not an attack per se on intelligent design or religion even for that matter--in fact one of the most interesting chapters deals with religion in a most even-handed fashion. Especially well done are the initial overview chapter on "Charles Darwin and His Revolution," followed by very detailed and sometimes challenging chapters on topics such as "Humans," "Literature" and the "Facts," "Path" and "Cause of Evolution." The author's discussion of "Dishonest Science" was particularly helpful since so many scientific claims and counterclaims seem to be flying around relating to evolution--and as usual, the discussion is extremely balanced. The author has written many books on evolution and is quite expert on the topic at all levels of complexity. His ability to explain all these concepts to those less versed is to be commended. His bibliography is of great value, and the book comes in at around 300 pages (including helpful illustrations and diagrams). A valuable addition to the library of anyone interested in getting more deeply into Darwin and his revolution.

What a satisfying book! For a while it seemed that we were stuck with two extremes: (1) Creationist/ID efforts to discredit Evolution or (2) rabid scientists (like Dawkins & Crew) who sought to imbue Evolution with a religious tone, insisting that those who accept it must also adopt an religion-bashing atheist. Worse, those latter efforts have turned the discussion on its head, moving it out of the scientific world into the culture wars of politics and religion. Besides, someone's position on faith is so scientifically irrelevant in the first place - science rises and falls on evidence, not on belief.

This is a good middle ground that does NOT take arguments from both sides and fuse them in a confusing mush of conflicting ideas. The defense of Evolution is broad, deep and thorough (although it is not textbook complexity). At the same time he gives air time to those from the other side (ID mainly) who cannot accept the fact that life arose from non-life and that natural selection could bring about such complex organisms as worms (you thought I was going to say "people" - LOL). Ruse not only explains the mechanical workings of Evolution (abbrevieated) but is somewhat of an expert on the history of the idea. This part was, in many ways, one of the most satisfying as he traces Darwins's thought process, suppositions and conflicts. One can almost see the great man pondering these things on his way to church or as he putters in his nice English garden. Parenthetically, Darwin was totally against any war on religion and stated this numerous times.

While it is true that there are philosophical and religious implications of Darwinism, troubles immediately rise when it is used outside biology. That old fandango, Social Darwinism, was once widely accepted by "progressives" as a scientific way of measuring societies and individuals. The new emphasis on biosociology and biopsychology follows the same pathway by proposing that social constructs be formed around biological theories.

The most obvious example of conflict - and one he handles well - is religion. He does this however by diluting the underpinnings of many a religious person, treating miracles as allegory, supernatural events as parables and religious history as suspect. What he retains is the most important part in the real world - its ethical tradition. Although I find it difficult to understand how one can continue practicing traditional faith once the stories, miracles and history are removed, it is certaintly their right to do so without being insulted or savaged. Altogether a very good read.

In a previous book, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (2001), Michael Ruse reconciled the ways of Christianity to the fact of evolution. He did so by allowing for a largely symbolic reading of the Bible and by defining Christianity as a system of belief about matters beyond the reach of Darwinism, such as our having souls and being made in the image of God and being given heavenly or hellish eternal life in realms not subject to biological evolution.

Here Ruse adjudicates various disputes between Darwinism and its critics and among Darwinians themselves on such matters as natural selection (especially this), punctuated equilibrium, group selection, drift, reductionism, etc. Unfortunately I don't think he adds much that is new to the discussion, and his torturously "correct" navigation between believers and non-believers left this reader annoyed. Spill the beans! For example, state it clearly: Christianity that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with Darwinism. Period. Add: Those who appreciate the fact of biological evolution cannot accept that man was made in a Christian God's image or that a personal God is, and has been, shaping events on this planet.

Ruse writes from the point of view of a historian of evolutionary science and as someone sympathetic with what I might call progressive Christianity, a Christianity that knows that the world was not made in six days and that the earth has been around for a few billion years and that God does not have a belly button or even an alimentary canal or a need for either. Ruse is an expert on Darwinism and its contemptuous history and he understands the major issues very well. He is the kind of writer who bends over backwards to be fair to his opposition, such as creationists and Intelligent Designers, as well as atheists like Richard Dawkins or agnostics like Stephen Jay Gould. He is also the kind of writer who equivocates a lot, whose instincts are to find common ground and to further responsible and honorable dialogue, which is the strength of this book.

He begins with a chapter demonstrating the Charles Darwin really does deserve the credit he gets for being the first to understand natural selection, which is the very heart and soul of evolutionary theory. He goes on to argue for "The Fact of Evolution" (the title of Chapter Two) while giving a hearing to creationist/ID people like Alvin Plantinga and Michael Behe. He follows with a discussion of the some of the problems surrounding "The Origin of Life" (Chapter Three). He ends the book with chapters ten, eleven and twelve on "Philosophy," "Literature," and "Religion." There is some interesting material on the epistemological ramifications of biological evolution and whether we can construct some sort of morality from Darwin's blueprint. (No!) He analyses Ian McEwan's contemporary novel, Enduring Love (1997) in terms of its relationship to Darwinism, and he dregs up some raucous anti-Darwinian quotes from George Bernard Shaw and recalls Samuel Butler's Erewhon (1872) amid a gloss about the differences between machines and organisms. In-between there is some interesting pro and con about familiar issues within evolutionary theory.

Ruse's style is a little long-winded and (typical of philosophers) weighted down with careful qualification--yet, at the same time, he is capable of wit and sharp expression. This is the sort of book that will appeal to those readers with philosophic, literary and historical inclinations. This is not a book for biological scientists or for those looking for cutting edge discussions of problems in evolutionary theory.

Three things:

(1) I am not enamored of the term "Darwinism" as a synonym for biological evolution. It is too restrictive both in terms of the ideas and manifestations of evolution, but also in terms of the historical record.

(2) While Ruse understands that the facts about our biological nature revealed by evolutionary biology do not necessarily support any kind of "ought" about how we should behave, he doesn't seem to realize (see pages189-193) that we can understand and forgive on a biological level while on a societal level we must throw the violent criminals into jail. There is no "very fine line" between knowledge of our biology and our ethics, and "Darwinian approaches to humankind certainly" do not "cross that line." (p. 193) "What is" is one thing. "What should be" is another. People crossing that blunt and clearly marked line do so on their own.

(3) Little light and certainly no resolution are brought to bear on the problem of evil and free will that Ruse addresses beginning on page 284. He brings the matter up because some people think that seeing the world from the view of biological evolution somehow supports evil in the world and argues against free will. The problem of evil is the result of the belief in a personal God who is all powerful and at the same time all compassionate and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Furthermore, the question of whether we have free will or whether it is just an illusion we cannot help but believe, is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.