What do you think?
Rate this book
Darwinism and its Discontents 1st edition by Ruse, Michael (2008) Paperback
Presenting an ardent defence of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, this book offers a clear and comprehensive exposition of Darwin’s thinking. Michael Ruse brings the story up-to-date, examining the origins of life, the fossil record, and the mechanism of natural selection. Rival theories are explored, from punctuated equilibrium to human evolution (including the recently found ‘hobbits’, Homo floresiensis). The philosophical and religious implications of Darwinism are discussed, including a discussion of Creationism and its modern day offshoot, Intelligent Design Theory. Ruse draws upon the most recent discoveries, writing with a minimum of jargon in order to appeal to all readers, from professional biologists to those concerned that Darwinism is a naturalistic religion that is forced on school children despite their own Christian convictions. Openly revealing his own beliefs, Ruse presents readers with all the information and critical tools they need to make an informed decision on evolutionary theory.
Paperback Bunko
First published July 31, 2006
4 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
About the author
Michael Ruse
130 books100 followersMichael Escott Ruse was a British-born Canadian philosopher of science who specialised in the philosophy of biology and worked on the relationship between science and religion, the creation–evolution controversy, and the demarcation problem within science. Ruse began his career teaching at The University of Guelph and spent many years at Florida State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 28, 2019
Adjudicating points of contention
In a previous book, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (2001), Michael Ruse reconciled the ways of Christianity to the fact of evolution. He did so by allowing for a largely symbolic reading of the Bible and by defining Christianity as a system of belief about matters beyond the reach of Darwinism, such as our having souls and being made in the image of God and being given heavenly or hellish eternal life in realms not subject to biological evolution.
Here Ruse adjudicates various disputes between Darwinism and its critics and among Darwinians themselves on such matters as natural selection (especially this), punctuated equilibrium, group selection, drift, reductionism, etc. Unfortunately I don't think he adds much that is new to the discussion, and his torturously "correct" navigation between believers and non-believers left this reader annoyed. Spill the beans! For example, state it clearly: Christianity that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with Darwinism. Period. Add: Those who appreciate the fact of biological evolution cannot accept that man was made in a Christian God's image or that a personal God is, and has been, shaping events on this planet.
Ruse writes from the point of view of a historian of evolutionary science and as someone sympathetic with what I might call progressive Christianity, a Christianity that knows that the world was not made in six days and that the earth has been around for a few billion years and that God does not have a belly button or even an alimentary canal or a need for either. Ruse is an expert on Darwinism and its contemptuous history and he understands the major issues very well. He is the kind of writer who bends over backwards to be fair to his opposition, such as creationists and Intelligent Designers, as well as atheists like Richard Dawkins or agnostics like Stephen Jay Gould. He is also the kind of writer who equivocates a lot, whose instincts are to find common ground and to further responsible and honorable dialogue, which is the strength of this book.
He begins with a chapter demonstrating that Charles Darwin really does deserve the credit he gets for being the first to understand natural selection, which is the very heart and soul of evolutionary theory. He goes on to argue for "The Fact of Evolution" (the title of Chapter Two) while giving a hearing to creationist/ID people like Alvin Plantinga and Michael Behe. He follows with a discussion of the some of the problems surrounding "The Origin of Life" (Chapter Three). He ends the book with chapters ten, eleven and twelve on "Philosophy," "Literature," and "Religion." There is some interesting material on the epistemological ramifications of biological evolution and whether we can construct some sort of morality from Darwin's blueprint. (No!) He analyses Ian McEwan's contemporary novel, Enduring Love (1997) in terms of its relationship to Darwinism, and he dregs up some raucous anti-Darwinian quotes from George Bernard Shaw and recalls Samuel Butler's Erewhon (1872) amid a gloss about the differences between machines and organisms. In-between there is some interesting pro and con about familiar issues within evolutionary theory.
Ruse's style is a little long-winded and (typical of philosophers) weighted down with careful qualification--yet, at the same time, he is capable of wit and sharp expression. This is the sort of book that will appeal to those readers with philosophic, literary and historical inclinations. This is not a book for biological scientists or for those looking for cutting edge discussions of problems in evolutionary theory.
Three things:
(1) I am not enamored of the term "Darwinism" as a synonym for biological evolution. It is too restrictive both in terms of the ideas and manifestations of evolution, but also in terms of the historical record.
(2) While Ruse understands that the facts about our biological nature revealed by evolutionary biology do not necessarily support any kind of "ought" about how we should behave, he doesn't seem to realize (see pages189-193) that we can understand and forgive on a biological level while on a societal level we must throw the violent criminals into jail. There is no "very fine line" between knowledge of our biology and our ethics, and "Darwinian approaches to humankind certainly" do not "cross that line." (p. 193) "What is" is one thing. "What should be" is another. People crossing that blunt and clearly marked line do so on their own.
(3) Little light and certainly no resolution are brought to bear on the problem of evil and free will that Ruse addresses beginning on page 284. He brings the matter up because some people think that seeing the world from the view of biological evolution somehow supports evil in the world and argues against free will. The problem of evil is the result of the belief in a personal God who is all powerful and at the same time all compassionate and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Furthermore, the question of whether we have free will or whether it is just an illusion we cannot help but believe, is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
In a previous book, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (2001), Michael Ruse reconciled the ways of Christianity to the fact of evolution. He did so by allowing for a largely symbolic reading of the Bible and by defining Christianity as a system of belief about matters beyond the reach of Darwinism, such as our having souls and being made in the image of God and being given heavenly or hellish eternal life in realms not subject to biological evolution.
Here Ruse adjudicates various disputes between Darwinism and its critics and among Darwinians themselves on such matters as natural selection (especially this), punctuated equilibrium, group selection, drift, reductionism, etc. Unfortunately I don't think he adds much that is new to the discussion, and his torturously "correct" navigation between believers and non-believers left this reader annoyed. Spill the beans! For example, state it clearly: Christianity that relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with Darwinism. Period. Add: Those who appreciate the fact of biological evolution cannot accept that man was made in a Christian God's image or that a personal God is, and has been, shaping events on this planet.
Ruse writes from the point of view of a historian of evolutionary science and as someone sympathetic with what I might call progressive Christianity, a Christianity that knows that the world was not made in six days and that the earth has been around for a few billion years and that God does not have a belly button or even an alimentary canal or a need for either. Ruse is an expert on Darwinism and its contemptuous history and he understands the major issues very well. He is the kind of writer who bends over backwards to be fair to his opposition, such as creationists and Intelligent Designers, as well as atheists like Richard Dawkins or agnostics like Stephen Jay Gould. He is also the kind of writer who equivocates a lot, whose instincts are to find common ground and to further responsible and honorable dialogue, which is the strength of this book.
He begins with a chapter demonstrating that Charles Darwin really does deserve the credit he gets for being the first to understand natural selection, which is the very heart and soul of evolutionary theory. He goes on to argue for "The Fact of Evolution" (the title of Chapter Two) while giving a hearing to creationist/ID people like Alvin Plantinga and Michael Behe. He follows with a discussion of the some of the problems surrounding "The Origin of Life" (Chapter Three). He ends the book with chapters ten, eleven and twelve on "Philosophy," "Literature," and "Religion." There is some interesting material on the epistemological ramifications of biological evolution and whether we can construct some sort of morality from Darwin's blueprint. (No!) He analyses Ian McEwan's contemporary novel, Enduring Love (1997) in terms of its relationship to Darwinism, and he dregs up some raucous anti-Darwinian quotes from George Bernard Shaw and recalls Samuel Butler's Erewhon (1872) amid a gloss about the differences between machines and organisms. In-between there is some interesting pro and con about familiar issues within evolutionary theory.
Ruse's style is a little long-winded and (typical of philosophers) weighted down with careful qualification--yet, at the same time, he is capable of wit and sharp expression. This is the sort of book that will appeal to those readers with philosophic, literary and historical inclinations. This is not a book for biological scientists or for those looking for cutting edge discussions of problems in evolutionary theory.
Three things:
(1) I am not enamored of the term "Darwinism" as a synonym for biological evolution. It is too restrictive both in terms of the ideas and manifestations of evolution, but also in terms of the historical record.
(2) While Ruse understands that the facts about our biological nature revealed by evolutionary biology do not necessarily support any kind of "ought" about how we should behave, he doesn't seem to realize (see pages189-193) that we can understand and forgive on a biological level while on a societal level we must throw the violent criminals into jail. There is no "very fine line" between knowledge of our biology and our ethics, and "Darwinian approaches to humankind certainly" do not "cross that line." (p. 193) "What is" is one thing. "What should be" is another. People crossing that blunt and clearly marked line do so on their own.
(3) Little light and certainly no resolution are brought to bear on the problem of evil and free will that Ruse addresses beginning on page 284. He brings the matter up because some people think that seeing the world from the view of biological evolution somehow supports evil in the world and argues against free will. The problem of evil is the result of the belief in a personal God who is all powerful and at the same time all compassionate and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Furthermore, the question of whether we have free will or whether it is just an illusion we cannot help but believe, is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”
July 24, 2016
Michael Ruse at his best, but not for the faint of heart. He is a philosopher and academic. Ruse has taken on the theists in their various forms and forums. He is generally patient with their pseudo-logic but this is a book for the scientists. He opens the wounds of the disciplines own failures and shortcomings. For some it's too willing to air the scientific laundry, but it's never wrong logically.
We lost a great one when he passed.
We lost a great one when he passed.
February 1, 2014
Starts out as a good examination and defense of Darwinism but ends up pandering too much to religious beliefs.
September 28, 2012
Ruse attempts to defend Darwinian evolution against its myriad critics across the spectrum of human thought, a daunting task but one at which he largely succeeds. The book begins by explaining Darwinism and then traces the history of post-Darwin evolutionary ideas from the discovery of Mendelian inheritance and the subsequent rise of neo-Darwinism to Gould's challenge to the supremacy of selection and Wilson's sociobiology. From there, he starts to look at the implications of Darwinism including evolutionary theory's significance to politics, economics, racism and ethics. He wraps up the text by reviewing reactions to Darwinism and criticisms in the arenas of philosophy, literature and religion, and whether they hold any validity.
I can't say that I agree with all of his ideas--or even his language. Ruse insists, in 2006, on using the term "cladism" to describe what most practitioners refer to as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Why the semantic fuss? Cladism is a somewhat derogatory term that was used by opponents of the method in its early days and as Ruse does not seem to have any particular beef with the method, it's odd that he does so. He also tends to put too much stock in ideas that, except in some small circles, were long discredited at the time of this writing, like the notion of a stable molecular clock. When I was in graduate school some 13 years ago it was recognized that the problems of correctly calibrating a molecular clock such that it would be useful for inferring phylogenies were nigh-insurmountable. Some of these errors can be chalked up to Ruse being a professional philosopher and not a biologist but it is puzzling.
His concept of evolutionary ethics is also somewhat confusing. These parts of the book read a bit like he hasn't entirely made up his mind yet. He allows that humans have evolved as social animals and so there has historically been a selective advantage for cooperative behavior (which runs counter to the idea that individual selection is far more powerful) and yet he still seems to believe that there is "wiggle room": we can and do act as independent moral agents, sometimes acting selfishly and sometimes acting selflessly. I'm inclined to agree, but if Ruse is attempting to provide an evolutionary rationale for this idea it was pretty thin.
Finally his treatment of intelligent design creationism is rather brief and dismissive. Coming as much of it does toward the end of the book it's not too surprising, but it is disappointing. Again in fairness to Ruse, he does have one or two other books largely devoted to creationism and addressing this was not really the purpose of this treatise.
I can't say that I agree with all of his ideas--or even his language. Ruse insists, in 2006, on using the term "cladism" to describe what most practitioners refer to as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Why the semantic fuss? Cladism is a somewhat derogatory term that was used by opponents of the method in its early days and as Ruse does not seem to have any particular beef with the method, it's odd that he does so. He also tends to put too much stock in ideas that, except in some small circles, were long discredited at the time of this writing, like the notion of a stable molecular clock. When I was in graduate school some 13 years ago it was recognized that the problems of correctly calibrating a molecular clock such that it would be useful for inferring phylogenies were nigh-insurmountable. Some of these errors can be chalked up to Ruse being a professional philosopher and not a biologist but it is puzzling.
His concept of evolutionary ethics is also somewhat confusing. These parts of the book read a bit like he hasn't entirely made up his mind yet. He allows that humans have evolved as social animals and so there has historically been a selective advantage for cooperative behavior (which runs counter to the idea that individual selection is far more powerful) and yet he still seems to believe that there is "wiggle room": we can and do act as independent moral agents, sometimes acting selfishly and sometimes acting selflessly. I'm inclined to agree, but if Ruse is attempting to provide an evolutionary rationale for this idea it was pretty thin.
Finally his treatment of intelligent design creationism is rather brief and dismissive. Coming as much of it does toward the end of the book it's not too surprising, but it is disappointing. Again in fairness to Ruse, he does have one or two other books largely devoted to creationism and addressing this was not really the purpose of this treatise.
December 9, 2013
More pop than not. Certainly readable, but not overly convincing. Ruse provides in some cases, the more biologically sensitive ones, more sketches of replies to anti-Darwinists than full-blown (a phrase which occurs no less than 20 times in the book) responses. Despite this, Ruse does leave you with the feeling that Darwinism is not yet dead.
November 20, 2009
I'm discontented. Too much time trying to refute idiot philosophers, too little on ordinary idiots.
August 18, 2024
THE PHILOSOPHER OF SCIENCE EXPLAINS "HOW CAN ONE BE A DARWINIAN?"
Michael Ruse (born 1940) is a philosopher of science who teaches at Florida State University, and has written/edited books such as 'Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA,' 'But Is It Science?,' 'The Darwinian Revolution,' 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle,' 'Mystery of Mysteries,' etc.
He wrote in the "Acknowledgements" section of this 2006 book, "I have been thinking about the ideas in this book for about four decades and have decided that the time has come to put them all together. In a way, this book is a kind of prequel... to my earlier book... Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion. Many people told me that they enjoyed that book, but that they could not see how any right-thinking person could be a Darwinian. This is my answer to those people." (Pg. ix)
He admits, "It is true that Archaeopteryx was probably not the actual link between the reptiles and today's living birds---it was off on a side branch. And there are other forms that now have stronger claims in this respect. But this is not to diminish its worth, for... one expects for there to be a divergence of the earliest form or forms and that therefore most subsequent forms will go extinct." (Pg. 86)
Discussing human evolution, he says, "The most stunning find of all is the most recent, the little beings from the island of Flores, part of Indonesia... The official story is that they evolved from Homo Erectus---and so the brain as well as the rest of the body shrank... That we humans were not always alone is no surprise---it is to be expected. That these creatures are smaller than their ancestors... is not even a surprise---dwarfing on islands is a common pattern, and apparently these creatures (who made tools and used fire) hunted elephants, which were also dwarfed. So scientists are excited but not upset. All pointers are that Homo floresiensis is going to fit very nicely into the Darwinian picture." (Pg. 170)
About the peppered moths in England, he wrote, "Critics argue that Kettlewell's work was flawed---trimmed and shaped to make the desired conclusions---that alternative explanations were dismissed out of hand, and even worse... he deliberately suppressed crucial pieces of evidence... using dead moths glued to trees in what are known to be unnatural positions... And even worse, today we know that the whole story is a mess, simply because birds Do not see things in the same way as humans... and hence what can seem black to us can seem white to them... In short, as one eminent biologist has said, the whole situation is rather like finding out that there is no Santa Claus..." (Pg. 229-231)
Those interested in the Creation/Evolution and/or Intelligent Design issues will be very interested in this book.
Michael Ruse (born 1940) is a philosopher of science who teaches at Florida State University, and has written/edited books such as 'Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA,' 'But Is It Science?,' 'The Darwinian Revolution,' 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle,' 'Mystery of Mysteries,' etc.
He wrote in the "Acknowledgements" section of this 2006 book, "I have been thinking about the ideas in this book for about four decades and have decided that the time has come to put them all together. In a way, this book is a kind of prequel... to my earlier book... Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion. Many people told me that they enjoyed that book, but that they could not see how any right-thinking person could be a Darwinian. This is my answer to those people." (Pg. ix)
He admits, "It is true that Archaeopteryx was probably not the actual link between the reptiles and today's living birds---it was off on a side branch. And there are other forms that now have stronger claims in this respect. But this is not to diminish its worth, for... one expects for there to be a divergence of the earliest form or forms and that therefore most subsequent forms will go extinct." (Pg. 86)
Discussing human evolution, he says, "The most stunning find of all is the most recent, the little beings from the island of Flores, part of Indonesia... The official story is that they evolved from Homo Erectus---and so the brain as well as the rest of the body shrank... That we humans were not always alone is no surprise---it is to be expected. That these creatures are smaller than their ancestors... is not even a surprise---dwarfing on islands is a common pattern, and apparently these creatures (who made tools and used fire) hunted elephants, which were also dwarfed. So scientists are excited but not upset. All pointers are that Homo floresiensis is going to fit very nicely into the Darwinian picture." (Pg. 170)
About the peppered moths in England, he wrote, "Critics argue that Kettlewell's work was flawed---trimmed and shaped to make the desired conclusions---that alternative explanations were dismissed out of hand, and even worse... he deliberately suppressed crucial pieces of evidence... using dead moths glued to trees in what are known to be unnatural positions... And even worse, today we know that the whole story is a mess, simply because birds Do not see things in the same way as humans... and hence what can seem black to us can seem white to them... In short, as one eminent biologist has said, the whole situation is rather like finding out that there is no Santa Claus..." (Pg. 229-231)
Those interested in the Creation/Evolution and/or Intelligent Design issues will be very interested in this book.
August 3, 2011
Informative and up to date book on Darwin and his influence on things scientific and non-.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews