Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology

Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist, allies himself, in the title of this admirable treatise, to the atomist Democritus, who held that the whole universe is but the fruit of two qualities, chance and necessity. Interpreting the laws of natural selection along purely naturalistic lines, he succeeds in presenting a powerful case that takes into account the ethical, political and philosophical undercurrents of the synthesis in modern biology. Above all, he stresses that science must commit itself to the postulate of objectivity by casting aside delusive ideological and moral props, even though he enjoins, at the same time, that the postulate of objectivity itself is a moral injunction. He launches a bitter polemic against metaphysical and scientific vitalisms, dismissing them as obscurantist, as well as the animist projection in history and evolution, as represented by Teilhard de Chardin and, especially, the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism. He refutes teleological explanations of nature as being contrary to the postulate of objectivity, drawing attention to self-constructing proteins as teleonomic agents, followed by an explanation of the role of nucleic acids, reproduction and invariance. This leads him to dismiss Judaeo-Christian religiosity, which accords man a significant role as being created in God's image, as a nauseating and false pietism and he even goes so far as to recommend eugenic reform. Writing with great clarity and flair, and often in a forceful and idiosyncratic idiom, he puts forward a compelling case, though some knowledge of modern biology is presumed on the part of the reader. He also offers, in a truly philosophical fashion, fascinating insights and speculations on broader issues such as language, perception, the origin and nature of existence, as they are framed within his system. Generally, however, some experts and readers will contest some of his claims, such as his regarding proteins as primary, contrary to the common assumption that proteins are merely secondary to the genome. Nevertheless, a challenging, sophisticated and pugnacious treatise, which excels the work of the better-known biological writers in the English-speaking world, such as Dawkins and Gould.

What Dawkins does for the evolution of complexity, Monod does for the very start of life.Creationists like to believe that life is too complex, too perfect to have begun by chance. Monod shows, in excruciating detail, exactly how they are wrong. Dead wrong.This is a landmark, crucial book.

When it came out in 1970 this book caused a sensation. As well as explaining better for the general reader than ever before or since the revolutions in molecular biochemistry and genetics, Monod introduced the concepts that flowered into evolutionary socio-biology, Dawkins theory of memes,Dennett's and Ruse's philosophy of Darwinism and much more. One reads this short essay for enlightenment and stimulation; it is also shocking and crushing in its evaluation of the animisms(Monods word for religions) that have ruled human thought and behaviour. Although the conclusion is bleak and austere it is also exhilarating. Theists have attempted to respond, notably Mark Ward with 'God, Chance and Necessity' Even with 20 years to polish his arguments Ward loses lamentably in direct comparison to Monod's masterpiece of clear prose and devastating argument. Not a comfortable read but part of facing up to reality in the post religious era. A new edition with a forward by Maynard Smith has just come out in the UK.

In the face of the rising tendency in many of us to stick to misticism and religion, Monod's Chance and Necessity is like a refreshing but shocking ice-cold splash on a drunkman's face. In a rational precise path, Monod leads the reader to realise that the only right way to perceive life is to accept the ultimate truth: its all nothing but a game of dice by nature.

Monod writes superbly & succinctly for the thoughtful lay reader -- in a very short book. Monod perhaps should have won the Nobel Prize for his writing rather than for his research!