Abigail Lustig, Robert J. Richards, and Michael Ruse, eds. Darwinian Heresies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), viii + 200 Pps. $79.00
Abigail Lustig is a postdoctoral fellow at the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Robert J. Richards is professor of History and Philosophy at the University of Chicago, and Michael Ruse is Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. Together, they have edited contributions that trace the history of evolutionary thought, and challenge many of the assumptions that have built up over the years regarding Darwinian evolution. Covering a wide range of issues, Darwinian Heresies brings us from Charles Darwin and the Origin in the eighteenth century, through the twentieth, and to the present day. It is suggested herein that the roots of Darwin’s theory lie in Germany, that Russian evolutionism is more significant than many are prepared to allow (chapter two), and that the true influence on twentieth-century evolutionary biology was not Darwin, but Herbert Spencer. It investigates work of little-studied biologists who gave shape to contemporary science, it studies evolutionary theory of nineteenth century that is analogous to biologists’ work of today, and it compares Darwin’s conceptions of evolution with those of (post)modern science. In what remains, I will briefly comment on select chapters that I deem most interesting.
In the Introduction to the volume, Lustig explores why evolutionary biology is so rife with terms and emotions that often characterize religion. She notes how British scientists and theologians of the early twentieth century felt that reconciliation between evolution and natural theology was possible by way of progressive evolutionary theories and various concepts of emergence, which no doubt aided the incorporation of religious sentiment into evolutionary thinking. Taken to the extreme by some contemporary advocates, it is thought that evolutionary biology is slated to replace religion in not only its explanatory capacity, but also its social functions as well, she highlights (4–6). Western monotheistic religion is text-based, which is yet another corollary with evolutionary biology, as it is based principally upon the text of Darwin’s Origin, and proverbial submission to both is required for orthodoxy. Interestingly, Lustig notes that in regards to teleology, Darwin seemed to have his cake and eat it too, as he at times used teleological language, but then denied progressive evolution in print (11).
In chapter three, entitled, “The Specter of Darwinism: the Popular Image of Darwinism in Early Twentieth-Century Britain,” Peter J. Bowler notes that Darwin’s idea of natural selection had massive opposition from the start, and few thought that it was adequate to generate the entirety of evolutionary change. He divides this chapter into three parts, the first of which examines the changing meaning of the term ‘Darwinism’ around 1900 and how it increasingly referred to the more narrow theory of natural selection. The second part of the chapter gives credence to the assertion in part one by providing examples of early twentieth century writers who used the term in this narrower sense. The final section of this chapter describes the sources of the non-Darwinian models that did not triumph materialism during this time frame. Lustig contributes another excellent essay in chapter four, titled “Natural Atheology,” in which she considers why (in her opinion) atheism has a hold on modern evolutionary thought.
Ronald L. Numbers argues in chapter five, “Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection,” that despite the popular image of creationists being wedded to the fixity of species, those notorious ‘heretics’ actually posited rapid speciation by means of natural selection! In a slight criticism of Robert J. Richards’ essay found in chapter six, “If this be Heresy: Haeckel’s Conversion to Darwinism,” there seems to be allot of extra detail to be found therein that is not essential for his thesis that Darwin was essentially correct in his affirmative evaluations of Haeckel’s work in 1864. Nevertheless, he does successfully demonstrate that Haeckel was an ardent – at times vitriolic – advocate of Darwinian theory.
Michael Ruse highlights the contribution of Herbert Spencer to twentieth-century American evolutionary biology, principally through his influence on the founder of population genetics, Sewall Wright, in the sixth chapter. A Spencerian view of evolution is one that is fundamentally progressive, according to Ruse, who also stipulates that for Spencerians, natural selection is secondary, while Lamarckian evolution is primary (135–135). In the last chapter, number nine, Mikael Stenmark explores what views might be proper about the relationship between contemporary Darwinism and religion. He terms some philosophers of science – such as S.J. Gould – as ‘Darwinian Restrictionists’, that is, those who posit that science and religion have different epistemic norms, and operate in separate magisteriums. In contrast, there are some, like E.O. Wilson – termed ‘Darwinian Expansionists’ – who assert that biologists ought to be atheists (174–179). He does not think the positions of either of these schools of thought are tenable, and instead argues for a ‘contact’ view regarding the relation, one in which the two modes of knowledge learn from and contribute to each other.
All in all, I highly recommend this title for patrons who have interests in the philosophy of science. The authors, some of today’s leading historians and philosophers of science, look at the history of evolutionary thought, breaking through much of the conventional thinking, and suggest that there are some assumptions and theories that are blinding us to important issues. This collection is guaranteed to interest, excite, possibly infuriate, and definitely stimulate further work.
Bradford McCall, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA