Brian Baxter, A Darwinian Worldview (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is considered in its implications to human beings in this book. The Darwinian worldview, according to Baxter, is composed of two primal claims: one, that homosapiens are animals, and two, that homosapiens have arisen by the blind process of natural selection. A key issue throughout the book is the connection between this Darwinist perspective on human beings and environmental ethics. So then, Baxter examines the notion that if, as the Darwinian worldview claims, humans are part of the natural order, have they any moral responsibility to non-human living entities? The implications of these positions for the meaningfulness of human life are also examined. Throughout the discussion, the positions in sociobiology and environmental ethics developed by E.O. Wilson are taken as characteristic features of both a Sociobiologist and a Darwinian worldview. Baxter critically engages the Neo-Darwinian viewpoint and consistently sides with the Meta-Darwinian viewpoint (otherwise known as “interactionist,” or as the book itself uses, “gene-culture co-evolution theory”), as advocated by E.O. Wilson. The co-evolution theory admits that there are more factors than merely genetic ones at play with evolution (including: endosymbiosis, morphogenetic fields, and exaptation). The strong point of co-evolution is that it retains the notion that biology and culture are intimately linked, and that evolution can only be properly understood when viewed as such. The implications of these arguments for the social sciences and humanities are assessed.
The weak point of the book concerns Baxter’s treatment of religion and Darwinian thought. Baxter seems ill-equipped to enter into such venues, and it shows lucidly. For example, Baxter claims, unabashedly, that a Darwinian worldviews possess no religious content. However, this notion is not well-supported by Neo-Darwinian philosophers, who themselves admit to such religious overtones within Darwinian thought. For example, Michael Ruse, a leading Neo-Darwinian, states that evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Moreover, Baxter seemingly paints an unfortunate broad stroke in speaking of religious people who believe in the concept of creation. However, this weak point aside, the main import of the book is not at all diminished. Baxter attempts to show the way in which Darwinism contributes importantly to human self-understanding and to understanding the natural world in relation to humans. For that reason alone, I heartily recommend Baxter’s book for those who are minimally acquainted with the broad field of Darwinian thinking.
Bradford McCall