Darwinism and Its Discontents

This book is a wonderful overview of all of those who have attacked Darwinism and all of the arguments used to defend it. It even dives into the very roots of evolutionary thinking, going back (briefly) to the ancient and medieval philosophers, up through the progressive vision of Victorian England that produced and served to popularize Darwin beyond the confines of natural selection. Though it cedes considerable ground to the naysayers -- more so than say, Dawkins, one of Ruse's rivals -- this only serves to strengthen the author's rather moderate argument (he consders himself to be a "conservative atheist"). Ruse laughs off almost as much of the arguments that he dignifies; he is probably as much a scholarly writer as he is a very funny writer, although awkward at times, as many sentences have excessive, if unnecessary, parenthetical comments. You will get a lot out of this book if you know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory as a scientist (like myself) -- you will probably be able to follow and absorb his arguments more smoothly if you are very well-trained philosopher (like him). However, even a smattering of familiarity with either fields is enough to enjoy and learn from 'Darwinism and its Discontents.'

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.

Everyone knows that there are religious objections to Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution. Those who make them are the loudest of objectors to natural selection these days, but there have, in fact, been other sorts of objections, from philosophers, from students of social studies, from literary authors, and even some from biologists and those within the community of evolutionary studies. None have made much of a dent in the overall understanding of evolution, according to _Darwinism and Its Discontents_ (Cambridge University Press) by Michael Ruse, an authority on the history and philosophy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It has not mattered much that the theory has spawned many objections; Ruse starts his book by quoting Daniel C. Dennett, who says that Darwin would get his award for the single best idea that anyone has ever had, and Ruse agrees. Nonetheless, this is a brisk if academic examination of who has been making the objections and why. Since evolution has yet to fall, and is still the cornerstone of biological understanding, learning what its detractors think can only increase our admiration for its power. Darwin, after _The Origin of Species_, wrote specifically about the descent of humans, turning to sexual selection as well as natural selection. His fellow discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, insisted that many human features, including our big brains, could not have come from natural means, but Darwin was sure that humans were part of nature's processes. People accepted evolution overwhelmingly, but they rejected Darwin's explanation of evolution by natural selection, finding that some force beyond simple adaptation (whether natural or divine) was necessary. It was not until the genetic laws of Mendel were rediscovered in the twentieth century that population genetics was advanced as the internal mechanism that would allow for variation and selection to occur. Ruse, in a chapter titled "The Fact of Evolution" not only summarizes the evidence for the theory (of course, Ruse has to explain that "theory" does not mean "hypothesis") which Darwin gave, but also the evidence which genetic studies now give. One chapter is an explicit rebuttal of the title of a famous creationist book _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_, and shows that by multiple methods, fossils, cladistic analyses, molecular clocks, and other independent means of verification, evolution is as soundly based as gravitation. This is not to say that all evolutionists agree, but the creationists are wrong to take such disagreements as meaning that evolution is all in a shambles. Ruse reviews limitations and restrictions on the theory, and also the frauds and hoaxes that have marred its history. Ruse has a chapter on the effects of evolution on literature (Shaw hated it and blamed Darwinism for World War One) and on philosophy, where it can be shown to support a commonsense morality rather than merely the "social Darwinism" that has been properly cri

At a time when Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are releasing books that are very anti-theistic in nature, a book like "Darwinism and It's Discontents" is timely, indeed. It's point is to offer a staunch defense of evolution and evolutionary theory (in the process, doubting that creationist theories hold any water), but at the same time, doing so in a way that does not NECESSARILY equate (as Dawkins does) evolution with atheism. In other words, this is truly a book defending evolution AS evoluiton, rather than getting into the ancillary (so Ruse thinks) theological debate. And defend evolution he does - using very jargon-free and clear arguments and evidence. Each chapter addresses a particular "beef" that some have with evolution - is evolution really a scientifica theory?; Is it proven by the physical evidence?; Could it have produced life from non-life (abiogenesis)?; What, if anything, are the moral implications of evolution? All of these, and more, are very well explored. Now that I have trotted out the questions, let me give a preview to the answers found in the book (though you will still have to read it to get Ruse's arguments for them): Is evolution a scientific theory? Yes; while it started out more as a philosophic speculation, it has since become a very testable (verifiable and falsifiable) theory that can also be considered, in a sense, fact. Has physical evidence shown evolution to be true? We all know that on a micro level, hardly anyone would deny this. But, says Ruse, we also have evidence of transitional forms, archeological evidence that fits perfectly into the evolutionary paradigm, and strong evidence as to how evolution physically works. Can evolution produce life from non-life? Frankly, we are not sure yet, but a 'yes' answer looks promising. What are the moral implications of evolution? Ruse trods through countless attempts by theorists as diverse as Spencer, Huxley, and E.O. Wilson to draw moral implications from evolution, but Ruse's final analysis suggests that no "ought" can be derived from an "is" without, itself, being a moral judgment. Ergo, evolution only has moral implications if you want it to. (And, yes, nonbelieving Ruse suggests that one can - very carefully, of course - be theistic and believe in evolution!). All in all, a very well written and moderate defense of evolution. Unlike books by Dawkins, Harris, and, to a lesser extend, the philosopher Dan Dennett, this book is one that a thoughtful religionist could read without pulling one's hair out. In other words, Ruse is the unique type of author who can, at once, defend evolution deftly while also being able to speak maturely and non-condescendingly to critics of evolution

Ruse is one of the most sophisticated and nuanced authors on the implications of evolutionary biology, and I think this is one of his best works because of both its particularly high readability and the characteristic care Ruse takes with each topic. Ruse delves into each topic with thoroughness and care and without the doctrinaire dismissals sometimes found from both supporters and critics of modern evolutionary biology. Fans of passionate defenders of Darwin like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett will likely be annoyed in many places by Ruse's extraordinary and sincere efforts to consider opposing arguments, and his focus on philosophical implications as much as scientific details. However this is a book that will appeal particularly to intellectual moderates and other thoughtful readers who want to think through the ideas for themselves and are not afraid of a little philosophical and scientific complexity. Ruse will definitely make you think as he raises the many profound issues touched upon by the implications of Darwin's ideas. This is not the best book to read if you're looking for an account of evolutionary biology or for an easy concise introduction to Darwinism and its detractors. It is, on the other hand, probably one of the very best and most comprehensive accounts of modern biological thinking vs. the recently proposed alternatives, and is thanfully relatively free of technical jargon.