Plant Syst. Evol. 239: 155–168 (2003)

Book reviews DOI 10.1007/s00606-003-0162-3

Ruse M.: The Evolution Wars. A Guide to the Debates. 105 black and white illustrations, xviii + 326 pp. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 2001. Softcover EUR 32,22, £19.95, US$ 26.00. ISBN 0-8135-3036-9. Let me just go straight to the point in the very first sentence: The Evolution Wars by Michael Ruse is a terrific read. I feel fortunate having had the opportunity to read it, and undoubtedly I will continue to re-read selected parts in times to come. So, for those of you who only browse book reviews hastily: off you go, to your local bookseller! In The Evolution Wars Michael Ruse takes you more or less chronologically through the development of evolutionary thought. The book contains ten chapters, and in each chapter Ruse focuses on a particular period (e.g. pre-Darwinian times, or the second half of the 19th century with the advance of Social Darwinism and Marxism), a particular evolutionary topic (the origin of life, the advent of man), or a topic with social connotations (sociobiology, science and religion). Although these topics may seem miles apart, these are mere stepping stones in a flowing, continuous story about the development of our thinking about evolution and, crucially, the context of those developments. Major social developments alternate with people’s personal beliefs and intentions, accurate explanations of biological concepts or particular evolutionary case studies are followed by humorous accounts out of important evolutionists’ lives. Moreover, each chapter portrays conflict. Conflict between two individuals, or between

two schools of thought. Like the conflict between Othniel Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope, two 19th century American fossil hunters. A battle in which deception, money and prestige were key elements. Or the conflict between Dobzhansky who thought that within populations there is a balance between the ratios of homozygotes and heterozygotes (‘‘balanced superior heterozygote fitness’’), and Muller arguing that heterozygosity is discouraged (‘‘classical hypothesis’’). This conflict is depicted against the background of the Cold War and religious beliefs. So, as the history of evolutionary theory is truly a battlefield, the title of Ruse’s book is very appropriate. Words like ‘‘ultra-Darwinians’’ – provoking images of evolutionists wearing black clothes and balaclavas – only add to this. There is never conflict of data, however. Conflict arises when data are indecisive (which they often are) and people interpret things in the ways that accord with their own hypotheses. Ruse stays off the battlefield, and impartially comments on the arguments. That does not mean that Ruse has not taken a stand on evolution. Occasionally the reader is reminded that the author is a Darwinian himself. Even so, he remains unprejudiced and kindhearted when writing about views that he cannot approve of as a Darwinian, such as creationism, to which he devotes several pages. Given the emotions with which the history of evolutionary thought is so highly charged, this equanimity almost would make you suspicious. Accidentally, however, Ruse lets himself go into feelings of satisfaction (‘‘Fortunately, the synthetic theory [of evolution] showed its worth and more’’ [p. 134]) or triumph (‘‘…through his adaptationism, Wilson was

156

able to throw very considerable light on intricate aspects of hymenopteran social behaviour. That ultimately is the answer of the Darwinian to those who would belittle or deny their work and its worth’’ [p. 254]). Ruse is human after all. Ruse is a superb narrator. He gets you very involved, and when I finished reading The Evolution Wars I found myself surrounded by piles of books on evolution, philosophy, and religion that I had been urged to thumb through. Also, when reading this book my memory went back to an undergraduate course in Palaeobiology and Evolution, which I took in the mid-80’s. The scene was the Catholic University of Nijmegen. I thought highly of the professor for his vast knowledge, his great teaching skills, and his colourful drawings on the blackboard, and the course still ranks first among the undergraduate courses that I took. At the end of his last lecture the professor, changing his voice to a solemn timbre, addressed the involvement of God in evolution. ‘‘During the past weeks’’, he told us, ‘‘I have uncovered the history of life for you without mentioning God. And there is no need to do so.’’ And he continued ‘‘However, I respect people who believe in God, and any believer amongst you, who feels like acknowledging God for life on earth, could think that the evolution of life as I have been teaching was designed by God.’’ With those words the course was concluded. I was furious. What sort of silly intellectual comprise was this? We had been taught a continuous and consistent chronicle of life on earth, and all of a sudden we were given the choice to decide whether this was a coherent chronicle in itself, or whether an outside power was needed to explain it. This could not be true! The example contains two elements that, next to the blinding emotions, are always linked to the history of evolutionary thought, both of which play an important role in Ruse’s book: the search for a unifying and coherent theory (that is, without the need of ad-hoc explanation or anything elective), and the appearance of God at any point.

Book reviews

Up to Chapter 4, the book has been dealing mainly with evolution-as-secular-religion, Social Darwinism and the like. At the end of the 19th century, Darwinism and evolution were valued as ideology of progress, of striving and moving upward with society. To one of the evolutionists from that era, the American, Alpheus Hyatt, evolution ‘‘did not make that much difference to his science at all.’’ (p. 98). But then comes Chapter 5, focusing on the integration of Darwinian selection with genetics, the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, and about great evolutionists like Dobzhansky, Mayr, Simpson, and Stebbins. Evolutionas-professional-science is replacing evolutionas-secular-religion. For Dobzhansky and fellows it was pivotal to develop a professional research programme, with ‘‘models and causes and quantification and so forth’’ (p. 132). But although evolution did not serve as an ideology, religion was still a factor. Contrary to what you perhaps would expect, the synthetic theorists cared about the religious and philosophical matters. ‘‘There was not one of them who had not turned to evolution in the first place to find the meaning of life, hoping especially to discover the implication of an evolutionary approach for our own species’’. (p. 132). Also, ‘‘the synthetic theorists claimed that molecular biology is narrow and limited, that its technical achievements conceal its spiritual aridity’’. (p. 140). Now, asking yourself questions about the meaning of life is referring to an end or a goal: a teleological question. Teleology has a bad reputation amongst evolutionists. Sometimes it is thought that teleology equals natural selection in equipping a species to face novel future contingencies (Futuyama 1986), in which case teleology is very much rejected. Natural selection is thought to have no purpose and no goal – not even the survival of the species (Futuyama 1986). And closely linked to this is the rejection of progress. This view is also mirrored in Ruse’s book: ‘‘Although all of this [invoking causal factors] may have happened in the past – undoubtedly did happen in the past – it is no longer true of today’s work. It is

Book reviews

far more objective and value-free and so forth. After all, we are all Darwinian evolutionists now, so talk about ‘achieving destinies’ is simply ruled out of court. Darwinian organisms do not achieve destinies. If they are lucky, they survive and reproduce – for a time.’’ (p. 184). Ruse presents these sentences as being said by paleoanthropologists. On the contrary, consider the following by Ruse: ‘‘It could just be that Neanderthals came directly from Homo habilis so there was no question of their going back. It is just that we went forward and when the two populations met, the Neanderthals were behind us and also behind our ancestors who were older than the Neanderthals (p. 196). And ‘‘the ardent Darwinian, the Richard Dawkins (or Michael Ruse for that matter), believes above all that the mark of the organic world is its designlike nature… But how can one produce this design? If the only way that is possible is through natural selection, then one can argue that God did what He did because He had to. There was no choice.’’ (p. 280) Now here we have a massive battlefield! Not so much an evolutionary battlefield, but rather a philosophical battlefield. Design, purpose, and teleology seem to be key elements. Could this be the reason that Ruse remains silent about this controversy, despite the fact that he is a philosopher: philosophical battlefields simply didn’t fit into the concept of this book? The battlefield is not new, and the controversy can be reduced to a Platonic (the purpose is external, and an outside, rational agency acts intentionally) vs. an Aristotelian understanding of teleology (the purpose is immanent, and there is an immanent potential for change). Lennox (1994) gives a good overview of the topic. Likewise, the way God features in the book is something that could have been explored much more extensively. In the last chapter Ruse mainly brings in Dawkins to express the Darwinian atheist vision. Dawkins fights an external, thinking God who has intentions. Given this point of view Dawkins wonders why God allowed that there is suffering in the world. Despite Ruse’s remark on page 279 that

157

we shouldn’t trivialize what Dawkins has to say, I think Dawkins’ opinions on theology are silly, and Ruse shouldn’t hide behind them. Dawkins makes a mockery of so many insights gained by people outside of evolutionary biology. He makes a mockery of God too, as his dualistic, Christian God has been challenged by so many theologists, and by so many people having non-Christian religions. A look out of the trenches of atheistic Darwinism could be refreshing. I sincerely hope Ruse is going to write another book on philosophical battlefields in the development of evolutionary thought. As soon as I hear it is issued, I will rush off to my bookseller and buy it straightaway. References Futuyama D. J. (1986) Evolutionary biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Lennox J. G. (1994) Teleology. In: Keller E. F., Lloyd E. A. (eds.) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 324–333.

Lars Chatrou Utrecht, The Netherlands

DOI 10.1007/s00606-003-0163-2

Gusman G., Gusman L.: The Genus Arisaema. A Monograph for Botanists and Nature Lovers. 507 color plates, 15 tables, 28 figures, 450 pp. Gantner Verlag, Ruggell (distributed by Koeltz Scientific Books, Ko¨nigstein), Timber Press, Portland, 2002. Hardcover EUR 83,-, £39.51 US $69.95. ISBN 3-904144-91-X. This stunning and beautiful book is the result of many years of field work in many parts of the world by the authors who had firsthand experience with most of the species and made photographs of plants, mostly in natural habitats, showing different morphological aspects which best typify their systematics. A total of 507 color photographs allow most species to be well illustrated.