The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man [Paperback]

Brown cuts right to the most interesting aspects of each controversy in evolutionary theory, makes each side clear, and all the while places each controversy into larger perspective in a coherent narrative from the first page to the last. It would be very difficult to read this book without coming away bubbling with ideas about it; which is a way the author describes Richard Dawkins' books; but I think it applies just as well to Brown.

I was particularly impressed with how the author managed to make his presentations of some very technical points so very clear without resorting to pedantry at any point, and at the same time gave a vivid picture of the personalities and their motivations without reducing them to charicatures or elevating them to icons. The power of Andrew Brown's straightforward conversational writing is very misleading and sneaks up on you, he teaches a great deal here without you realizing you are being taught.

The journey here beings appropriately with the very thing that makes sociobiology most uncomfortable: the startling mathematical discovery that selfless behavior could in principle evolve through natural selection. If even our lofty ideals are the product of an algorithmic process in nature, our view of ourselves is fundamentally tainted somehow, a conclusion of no small importance as Brown dramatizes with the tragic suicide of theorist George Price. The important thing that Brown recognizes that many authors miss is that evolutionary theory doesn't tell us we are selfish, it tells us something much more horrible ... that even when we act selflessly it is a result of our animal nature, not a matter of transcending our animal nature.

There is an excellent presentation of the different sides of several important sociobiological controversies, and oen of the best discussions of memes and their implications that I've ever come across.

Most notably, Andrew Brown does not just point out where he disagrees with some of the ideas, but offers positive alternatives to persue that avoid the pitfalls. He offers the Aquatic Ape theory as a perfect example of good adaptationist thinking whether it is true or not, and offers David Hull's excellent "Science as a Process" as a foundational text for a potential true science of memetics.

If you have any interest at all in the application of evolutionary theory to human beings, I think this book is required basic reading. Another excellent choice covering much of the same territory in a different way is Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould." That gives a more technical coverage of the controversies for those who want better depth. Also, for a more complete coverage of the personalities and early history of sociobiology, try "Defenders of the Truth" by Segerstrale.

The extent to which a good journalist (and Brown is one) cannot sufficently grasp the issues in modern Darwinism is precisely the extent to which no popular books ought to be written about it at all, by anyone.

If an intelligent journalist working full time on the issue can't correctly understand it, what hope does the casual reader have?

The fact is that most of the issues really aren't all that tough, and where things do get complicated, the issues are often philosophical and interpretive. Areas where scientists have not shown themselves to be particularly adroit (as Brown notes). There is plenty of writing out there by scientists whose credentials in the lab are impeccable and whose command of the facts I wouldn't dare to question.

But when some of these folks quit the job of fact gathering and start interpreting and sketching out implications . . . well, let's just say that words & phases like naive, wishful thinking, overly ambitious and even stupid start coming to mind.

Brown (though he briefly forgets which sex is XY) generally seems to have his facts straight, he digs up little-told portions of the history of the Darwin Wars, and has an interesting take on the personalities involved.

Brown's philosophical sympathies lie with the Gould camp (emphasizing the limits on what science can really say with confidence about things like society and culture), but he presents a pretty balanced view nonetheless, very solid on the sometimes rather half-baked philosphical underpinnings of scientific interpretation at its most exalted (and perhaps most dangerous) level.

A valuable book.

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, reveals 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.