Another Ruse

	Book review on Evolution and Religion by Ruse, Michael (2008) Reviewed by Martin Lockley, 2009 published in Network Review No 99
	(order this book from amazon.co.uk)

The prolific Michael Ruse has produced another book on the often-fractious but perennially-topical dialogue between science and religion. In a departure from his usual format of straightforward historical and philosophical discourse (Network 91 and 92), Ruse adopts the ruse of a fictitious five part round table discussion (in a Public Television series 'Eternal Questions') with the provocative title 'Science and religion: who is winning?'  Five fictitious panelists include  Professor David Davies, an Evolutionary Biologist, the Reverend Emily Matthews, an Episcopalian priest, Harold Wallace, head of a large Southern Baptist church and Martin Rudge an academic historian/philosopher, who the moderator - Redvers Fentimann - treats as the ultimate arbiter on questions of fact.  The entire cast is lavishly named in honour of Ruse's own family, and it is clear that Davies represents Richard Dawkins, that Rudge is Ruse,  while Matthews and Wallace represent two very different shades of Christianity on the non-secular side of the aisle.

    In Programme  1 - on 'Options' we learn that Ian Barbour defined four science-religion debate positions:  Warfare, Independence (also labeled Neo-orthodoxy by Karl Barth), Dialogue and Integration -  the latter being the position of Process Philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead. Davies (Dawkins) openly adopts the warfare stance. Wallace, the Baptist, although opposed to scientism, claims to be for dialogue, and Matthews professes to be for integration. Rudge (Ruse) claims independence and cleverly makes the three other protagonists intelligent, moderately well-informed, and mostly polite despite being wedded to their own favoured if not entrenched positions. Through Davies we get a glimpses of Karl Popper and science's self-correcting ability,   Wallace raises questions about Marxist influence on Darwin, Gould, scientism and methodological naturalism,  and Matthews reminds us of the historical paradigm shifts in world view that made us reject the medieval view of the world as an organism in favour of a mechanical, Newtonian, Cartesian universe, before the re-emergence of Gaia and a new feminine world as organism philosophy.   As if to underscore the need for a minimum of cooperation Ruse closes Programme 1 by dismissing Dawkins'  The God Delusion as 'one of the worst books I have ever read.'

            Programme 2 on 'Origins' gives Ruse a chance to discuss Darwin's influences (Paley's Natural Theology) and William Whewell (pronounced 'Hule') who, incidentally coined the term 'consilience' (consilience of inductions) which  E. O. Wilson adopted for his book title (see below). Here the argument revolves around the meaning of intelligent design (is the world so well-designed that we must infer God?) and the perennial question 'where did we come from?'  Ironically the idea of History and Evolution has clear Judeo-Christian origins and both science and religion are largely human social constructions. However, we should not use God as a 'science stopper' by claiming no solution to such apparent problems as irreducible complexity.

            Programme 3 on 'Problems' cites the work of those such as SMN member Brian Goodwin on intrinsic patterns (morphogenetic fields) and self-organisation as a significant challenge, and 'kinder, more gentle' alternative, to harsh adaptationist  (Darwinian) doctrine. Wallace cites his namesake Alfred Russel Wallace (co- author of Darwinian evolutionary theory) on the Anthropic sentiment that the universe may have been designed to produce complex 'life culminating in man.' And even the atheist Davies admits that Dawkins' conceded that 'Nature is cleverer than we think.'

            Programme 4 on 'Histories' gets into complex problems like the origin of life, Lynn  Margulis' theories on symbiogenesis, the origin of Eukaryotes and the Cambrian explosion. Such different groups as creationists and integrationists of a holistic bent are inclined to be skeptical of current Darwinian explanations for these 'emergent' events, and therefore entertain alternative dynamics such phase shifts in complex systems and punctuated eruptions of Order from Chaos (Network 88).  Ruse cautions, however, that interpreting new scientific ideas as proof of the Bible or intelligent, divine intervention is dangerous, if only for the simple reason that we don't know. But such warnings do not remove the conundrum that there is a fine line between Bergson's vital force and the inner light spoken of by religious persons such as Teilhard de Chardin who took his science and his religion seriously (and as a result was censored both by the Church and by grumpy scientists like Sir Peter Medawar). Ultimately the big bang, the mysterious origin of life and emergence of human self consciousness are inadequately explained by science, and any available hypothesis could equally well be attributed to natural law or divine creation. Both see design, even intelligent, cosmic organisation, but only the second postulates a designer or creator. 

            Programme 5 on 'Humans'   begins with E. O. Wilson's adaptation of Darwinism to create the paradigm of Sociobiology, the concept of reciprocal altruism, and later spin-offs including his Pulitzer Prize winning book On Human Nature, and the sub-disciplines of Evolutionary Psychology and even Evolutionary Psychiatry.  Prize or no,  Sociobiology was roundly criticised by Wilson's own Harvard colleagues (Gould and Lewontin) who found the deterministic 'biology is destiny' explanation of Human Nature inadequate, essentially preferring to place emphasis on nurture and culture rather than nature.  Genetic determinism may work for ants (on which Wilson is an expert) but humans have what are described as 'dimensions of freedom.'  As is often the case, consciousness is left to the final pages. Davies dismisses it as a product of natural selection - the software that runs the brain's hardware. Matthews sees mind and brain as co-evolving and considers it a miracle that 'dead matter can somehow give rise to thinking' (a position known since the time of Thomas Carlyle as 'natural supernaturalism'). Through the voice of Rudge, Ruse ends on the rather weak, mechanistic but honest position that 'the human thinking apparatus is just not strong enough to solve the problem of consciousness.'  He ends with his 'independence' position that there are 'things that a science based on a mechanical model or metaphor simply rules out of discussion.' These 'things' include ultimate origins, morality, consciousness and meaning.  No mention is made of a science that moves us beyond the mechanical model, and for this reason the SMN reader may be disappointed.

 There are many dimensions of meaning and interconnectedness that Ruse avoids or touches on only briefly through the voice of his integrationist mouthpiece (Matthews). I found myself wondering why so many of Ruse's books explore the perennial questions of the relationship between science and religion. Is this really just an academic subject,  or a deep psychological need for wholeness?  In fairness, the book was never meant to explore Ruse's deepest convictions. His interest is historical and philosophical and he remains a leading and level-headed commentator on the unfolding of the science-religion debate in western society.  The book format is deliberately light-hearted and informative, but the more thoughtful reader may wish to adopt the ruse of reading between the lines in order to meditate on the deeper psychological currents that drive so many dualistic and dichotomous debates.

Professor Martin Lockley teaches palaentology and consciousness studies at the University of Denver.

 

 

(order this book from amazon.co.uk)