Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #709992 in Books
• Published on: 2000-02-07
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 208 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Freelance journalist Andrew Brown's book the Darwin Wars takes a critical look at the resurgence of Darwinian explanations over the last 30 years, the content of which he describes as "a particularly potent brew of good science, striking metaphors, and bad philosophy, and consequently savage and important discussions".

The contending parties are reasonably and usefully described as "Gouldians" and "Dawkinsians" with the former group comprising Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Rose, Richard Lewontin, Mary Midgely, David Hull and others while the latter group includes Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, Helena Cronin, Matt Ridley and other names one could add. For Brown what is ultimately in dispute is not evolution or Darwinism as such, but "the scope and proper limits of Darwinian explanations". The really divisive and decisive question to which there can be no definite answer-- is not "Where does design come from?" but rather, "Where does it stop?"

The great practical value of this book is that it is written by someone who describes the polemical skullduggery of the contending personalities as an extremely interesting tale in itself--without doing any mud-slinging himself. Brown does not trivialise, insult, misrepresent or misunderstand the ideas of the people he is talking about and, as a consequence, the ideas and their historical emergence become clearer.

This is as clear and even handed an overview of the contemporary Darwin wars you could hope to read. Read alongside Jonathon Miller's Introducing Darwin and Evolution the interested layman will come to understand the general debate at a fairly sophisticated level. Reading and digesting these books makes it easier to read and evaluate books on biology. Promise! --Larry Brown

Synopsis
This is an account of neo-Darwinist theories, including the influential Selfish Gene theory - and the misunderstandings they provoke. Divided between "Dawkinsians" and "Gouldians", these theories are explained and evaluated, showing the profound impact they have had on beliefs and culture.

Customer Reviews

What is the meaning of life?
Andrew Brown uses sparklingly clear prose to illuminate the arguments between scientists working on neo or post Darwinian theories (dealing with evolution and the development of life). His language gives stunning clarity to a debate shrouded in metaphor and allusion. He takes Dawkins' 'selfish gene' [are organisms simply survival robots for selfish genes?] and explains (better, I suspect than Dawkins could) what this means and its implications. He looks at memes [the genes of ideas] and so much more. The book is generous in its description of scientists and broad in the territory it covers. Most importantly it does not dally on one point to long; it runs along plucking gems. For those inspired (like me) there is much more digging to do. In 40 years of reading this is one of the most perfect books I have read; both in the way it was written and the subject it illuminated.

A battlefield tour
A journalist writing on science embarks on a perilous journey. Preparation requires knowledge of the path, the likely hazards, and how to avoid awkward detours. When the trail passes through a disputed area, every risk is multiplied. In this instance, the dispute is interpreting how Darwin's idea of natural selection works. Andrew Brown makes a valiant effort to learn the route, chart the perils and keep to the centre. Even his vivid writing skills can't prevent him failing on nearly every count. Granted, the best informed writers have stumbled on the same trek. Brown, however, misses the whole point of the dispute.

His Foreward states that "Darwinian explanations" about the world have led to acrimonious scientific debate. The remainder of the book tries to outline those debates and their participants. The tragic story of George Price, a transplanted American who died in London in 1974, demonstrates the issue. Price had reformulated William Hamilton's earlier work on altruism. Nature, it seemed, offered little reward for altruism. The knowledge sent Price first into insanity, then suicide. The Hamilton/Price work brought Richard Dawkins to develop his idea of "the selfish gene." Brown struggles to comprehend Dawkins' idea that strings of molecules "desire" only to replicate. He turns to Dawkins' appearance and antecedents to relieve his confusion. He scorns Dawkins use of metaphor, labelling him "vulgar", then fills
this book with his own. Dawkins becomes the label for thinkers in one side of Brown's Darwin Wars - the "Dawkinsians." Although admitting its weakness, Brown retains the identification throughout.

The Dawkinsians are countered by the allies of Stephen J. Gould - "the pope of paleontology." Brown is clearly in awe of Gould's writing ability and reputation for accuracy. Unfortunately, Brown's veneration shields him from another of Gould's talents - the building of artificial targets for scathing assaults. Brown is more correct in his labelling of "Gouldians," since his quotes of Gould, Lewontin and Rose follow the long-established pattern. Lewontin characterized E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology as "bad science," even in the face of later work supporting it. Brown notes that Gould, Lewontin and Rose stood aligned against the rising science of evolutionary psychology. There's another aspect of Gouldians Brown favours. Brown, an athiest who writes for religious journals [i'm not making this up!], sympathizes
with Gould's "respect" for religions as opposed to Dawkins' argument that "any religion is irrational." Ultimately, when Brown takes an capricious detour later in the book, grants Gould and his "position" acceptable.

The detour is into the realm of philosophy. It's bad enough for a religion writer to attempt to write on science. Brown's excursion into science-cum-philosophy is wholly unwarranted. All the more so when he openly admits his inadequacies. Gould's most incisive critic isn't Dawkins, it's philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. Brown confesses his failure to understand Dennett's "Consciousness Explained," although that excellent book is but thinly related to Brown's theme. The real thrust is Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," which Brown doesn't understand either, but he fails to state that as openly. Brown claims DDI is a "freshly ground axe," instead of a surgically precise instrument eviscerating Gould's misuse of evidence. Because Dennett isn't a biologist, Brown accuses him of a "let's you and him fight" attitude, running from the fray after initiating it. Anyone who has read Dennett will never forgive such a slander. As a counter to Dennett, Brown gambits British philosopher Mary Midgley "in her large, sensible shoes." Besides her footwear, Midgely contributed only "her gift for the eviscerating phrase" to the debate. Her science, even Brown admits, was "confused and ignorant." Perhaps Brown is correct in assigning her to the Gouldian faction.

Brown fails to directly come to grips with the fundamental issue. How did natural selection produce thinking humans, and what, if any, is their role in the universe? After his tour of the biological battleground, he uses a cute chapter title, "How the Meme Raths Outgrabe" to again display his faulty understanding of Dawkins. Brown uses Dawkins' idea of the "meme," a replicable idea, to introduce a discussion of "morality." This was the issue that drove Price to suicide, Brown reminds us. Is the universe benevolent, offering some hope in the face of injustice? Or is it malign, a condition which brings Midgley again forward to declare as "madness." Brown, however, fails to consider the proper alternative - the universe is indifferent. If he'd read Dennett instead of maligning him, Brown might have caught the point.

There's some value in this book in the introduction of some issues and a few of the personalities. If you wish to understand why the Darwin Wars came about, however, you must turn to the sources. A compromise option is Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth. Although excellent, its focus is on the American participants, which, thankfully, omits Midgley.