Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears

This is not only the best book available on the dispute between science and religion, it is quite possibly the only one worth reading.

_Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears_, republished by Routledge in 2002, is a revised edition of a book by philosopher Mary Midgley which attempts to reveal the excesses and overbold prophecies of certain biologists (and other scientists) in their attempt to turn evolution into a religion. Midgley begins by noting that "I had been struck for some time by certain remarkable prophetic and metaphysical passages that appeared suddenly in science books about evolution, often in their last chapters. Though these passages were detached from the official reasoning of the books, they seemed still to be presented as science." Before going further though, it should be made clear that Midgley does not appear to be against the theory of evolution (properly formulated); indeed, she dedicates her book "To the Memory of Charles Darwin Who Did Not Say These Things", but rather to certain irresponsible statements and inferences drawn from it by certain scientists. Furthermore, Midgley is certainly not advocating Creationism (the belief in a literal "seven days") or Intelligent Design. (She references the work of the early Christian father Origen in this respect, showing the problematic in taking the account in Genesis to indicate a literal "seven days".) What this book is is simply reflections on some of these confusions made by scientists themselves and musings on the various philosophical underpinnings and implications of the theory of evolution. For a more detailed and convincing attack on the Darwinian account, one should consult the works of the Australian philosopher David Stove, particularly the book _Darwinian Fairytales_. Stove is a self-described "skeptic" in the tradition of David Hume and adheres to a common-sense approach in refuting the claims made by Darwinists, and furthermore, Stove is deeply indebted to this work by Mary Midgley in his own writings. Nevertheless, the writings of Midgley (while appearing to reject the traditional religious worldview) call into question many of the aspects of the modern scientific endeavor. Reactionary scientists and humanists generally will likely scoff at such ideas, but their refusal to actually consider the implications of their own researches (and especially the implications of their own religious prophecies) just serve to indicate how deeply in need of such questioning they are. It should also be pointed out that while this book was originally written as an essay in 1985, some of the claims may appear dated. However, since that time the practice of making overbold religious prophecies by noted scientists has only grown worse. Midgley begins by arguing that unlike Darwin's account of the theory of evolution (supposedly, although Darwin himself had elements of both of these in his account), two distinct fallacies have arisen in the interpretation of this account: the "Social Darwinist" distortion (perhaps best expressed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" invented by Her

My own convictions are both religious and rational, so I picked up this book with a little trepidation. The issue of evolution (and its wider social and philosophical significance) has been captured by both irrational creationists and pseudo-scientific dogmatists, each with their own axes to grind, and I find their polemics tiresome. This book is a welcome relief. Creationists looking for comfort will be disappointed, but Midgely also identifies the implicit and often ridiculous assumptions that underpin pseudo-scientific proposals for human improvement being advanced under the guise of biology, and puts her finger on the risks of placing science at the service of unscientific social engineering. These proposals corrupt both science and society, and will ultimately undermine public support for the real good that bioscience can do. She puts this problem down to the the narrowness of modern scientific training, and the failure of many scientific proponents of these schemes to understand the philosophical and social dimensions of their proposals. Paradoxically, this narrowness has also made scientists more susceptible to creationist ideas than their counterparts in the humanities (including theology). It's a thought-provoking investigation of the problems that excessive specialisation and intellectual arrogance has brought about. So how should our education systems be altered to fix it? I don't know, but I hope that will be the subject of another book as good as this one :-)

'Evolution as a Religion' was written in response to the extremism of popular science that has risen from the evolution/creation debate. Midgley is concerned with the clearly dogmatic views that some scientists hold, often resulting in worldviews that are compelling, but do not have the force of data behind them and should not be presented as science. Midgley deftly points out these failings, and along the way she brings up many philosophical implications of evolution. While its title and theme may scare off evolutionists who prefer pro-evolution literature, I point out that Midgley's purpose is not to prove or disprove evolution. She never steps into the realm of actual evidence concerning evolution; her purpose is to expose the 'bad science' that has become a plague in the scientific community. Hence, I believe the book serves as a tool to keep scientists' feet firmly planted on the ground, and not get carried away with the fallacies on both sides of the debate. This is the only Midgley book I have read; my exposure to philosophy is somewhat limited, but I found this book fascinating. I agree with the previous reviewer that the writing is heavy at times, so its slim appearance is deceiving--it may take some time to finish. But its density results in a thought-provoking and enriching experience. It is well worth your time, no matter what your beliefs.

Mary Midgley, a philosopher, applies her extremely sharp mind to the idea that evolution, as it is expounded in the popular science press by eager biologists, can in some ways be interpreted as a religion. By religion we mean of course the standard ones such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc. Rather than actually laying out in a strictly defined way the characteristics which make up the religious view, something which is very difficult given the vast differences in the previously mentioned cases, she approaches the subject by analysing some of the typical `literature' in the popular science press on evolution which express their views in a highly dogmatic fashion: for example Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Jacques Monod and so on. Gradually she lays bare the inherent faults in each of these texts by noting how not only that in most cases they state views which are not supported by strict science but in fact express metaphysical views which have the ring of science with all of its evidential weight. At times she shows that these opinions portray the same faults as those they wish to get rid of eg: the religious, vitalistic, animistic or metaphysical view. Midgley has the ability to analyse very carefully what is stated and see things the general public could easily skip past in their enthusiasm. This book demolishes all of these pseudoscientific fantasies although its writing style is sometimes heavy going and is not really suited to the lay public. This book is, I believe written more for the interested scientist who has already read some of the foregoing literature and wishes to get a deep analysis of these things to fathom their relevance. This she does does ably although one feels that throughout she does not express a clear and direct point of this analysis but rather a series of essays on several subjects which have some sort of coherent structure. This is the only problem with this book and one feels that no real definite conclusion has been reached.Nevertheless, Midgley is worth reading for her truly impressive ability to seek out faults which often lie hidden in the material she analyses and are quite subtle and not at all obvious until she points them out. It's good someone has done this to provide a clear head in all the plethora of the popular science literature, which in general, is not up to any sort of serious study of the state of science as it is today. In this case there is no chance one can easily dismiss her analyses as the wafflings of creationists or vitalists.