The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul

by Richard Morris

Introduced in 1859, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution generated hot debate and controversy. Today, nearly all reputable scientists evolution did happen and natural selection was its main driving force. And yet, a century and a half after Darwin, the theory of evolution is still being fought over with a ferocity that has rarely been equaled in the annals of science. What are scientists arguing about? And why are their exchanges sometimes so bitter?

In The Evolutionists , Richard Morris vividly portrays the controversies raging today in the field of evolutionary biology. With a clear and unbiased eye, he explores the fundamental questions about the evolutionary process that have provoked such vehement disagreement among some of the world’s most prominent scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, fellow paleontologist Niles Eldredge, geneticist John Maynard Smith, and zoologist Richard Dawkins.

As he elucidates the issues of contention, Morris also positions them within the broader context of evolutionary thought as a whole. He explains the theory of evolution in detail, reviews the main trends of evolutionary science since Darwin, and assesses how the field is changing today—from ground-breaking new research to the emergence of scientific disciplines like complexity theory and evolutionary psychology.

A vibrant account of contemporary evolutionary biology, The Evolutionists is a fascinating look at how controversy and debate shape the scientific process.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Nonfiction, Biology

262 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name.

Reviews

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Within the broader paradigms of evolutionary theory, Morris’ discusses Gould-Lewontin, evolutionary psychology and, to a lesser extent, complexity theory (Stuart Kauffman). These schools of thought raise such sub-issues as the determinism-free will, reductionism-holism, debates, and the nature of the brain (as a collection of modular structures designed to perform specific tasks versus a view of the brain as a general-purpose organ).

Interestingly, especially with hard-core neo-Darwinians and Lewontin-Gould, the debates are highly acrimonious. It’s the sparring among intellectual alphas, highly-intellectualized minds driven by subterranean forces. It illustrates Darwin’s observation that we share a common lineage with the great apes. It seems to be that all agree on the fundamentals (Morris more or less says this, which makes the title to his book overdone) – that we are products of evolution and natural selection acting on mutation — and that there is room to debate the details that these various schools of thought without getting into the pointed put-downs and name calling. While Morris does a good job of highlighting the details of these debates, it is a surprise that he says nothing about Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, which is more than equally a challenge to the strict emphasis on natural selection as the sole driver of evolutionary change.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cat fighting among the old guard in evolutionary biology

Well, Darwin's soul really isn't up for grabs. What is at stake is just who among the illuminati of the Darwinian establishment really have the goods on how evolution works and how it doesn't. "Spandrels" of the mind, "habitat tracking," how complexity affects evolution, "species sorting," whether evolution proceeds by leaps and bounds or just plods along, and other contentious matters form the body of this unsteady but interesting book.

The main antagonists are the usual suspects, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Lewontin, et al., proponents of punctuated equilibrium and a "holistic" approach to evolution on the one side, and Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, John Maynard Smith, et al., gradualist reductionists, the so-called "orthodox Darwinians," on the other. Dawkins, et al. believe that natural selection is the only really important factor in evolution while Gould, et al. believe that natural selection alone cannot fully explain how evolution works. Morris reviews their various publications and quotes them, revealing that they behave rather badly at times, sometimes resorting to unseemly personal attacks on one another--which leads me to observe that Darwin, who never involved himself in hot debates, much less in name calling, must be turning over in his grave.

The irony is, as Morris fumbles to makes clear, the seemingly substantive differences that are being so hotly debated are for the most part actually ones of emphasis and interpretation. Nobody involved doubts the supremacy of natural selection as the driving force in evolutionary change, any more than any of them doubt the fact of evolution. Morris gives the reader some background information about evolution and introduces complexity theory in order that the debate may be followed. In the penultimate chapter he gives a summary of the evidence as he sees it. A final chapter entitled, "Controversy and Discovery," includes the currently hot idea "that evolution can proceed at a more rapid rate than anyone had suspected." (p. 233) There is an annotated bibliography and a useful appendix listing relevant Web sites. Morris tries to avoid taking sides in this debate. Indeed, he bends over backwards to be fair, and that attitude, along with a beguiling, easy to read style, is the strength of the book.

There are weaknesses, however. His focus is too narrow with its concentration on Gould, et al. and Dawkins, et al. and their differences when there are much more interesting and immediate questions currently being debated. (I imagine that the young lions in evolutionary biology are very tired of seeing those old guys still getting all that ink!) For an interesting book by a young evolutionary psychologist on some of the newer controversies see Geoffery Miller's The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature (2000).

And then there are all those typos! I found typos on pages 41, 47, 107, 114, 199, 203, 228, and 232. In one case the word "would" was left out. In another the word "out" was used when the word "at" was meant, and in a couple of places extraneous words were left in. For example, on page 203 a sentence begins, "You should not should not automatically conclude..." When one sees a lot of typos in a book it suggests that the author did not read the proofs, or if he did, he did a cursory job of it.

Worse than the typos (and if I found eight, there are surely others) are some misstatements of fact and intent. On page 34 he writes that the mammals that survived the K-T extinction "are not more than their dinosaur predecessors." As Morris points out on page 32 "a frog is just as as a human being." But that means frogs living today and human beings living today. To compare how "evolved" the dinosaurs living 65 million years ago are to mammals living today makes little sense. Note too that on page 34 Morris refers to the extinction of the dinosaurs as taking place 65 million years ago, which of course is the standard take, but on page 124 he unaccountably states that the "collision with an asteroid" took place 70 million years ago. Actually he writes, "70 millions years ago," which, I just noticed, is another typo!

There is also entirely too much repetition in the book, as though the chapters were independently conceived and meant to be published separately and then not properly edited. For example on page 204 Morris repeats the same ideas, and even some of the same wording, that appears on page 123. Chapter 8, "The Evidence," in particular contains a lot of unnecessary repetition.

Finally there is a most annoying error on page 175 in Morris's discussion of the Watson selection task. As written the instructions are incomplete and must leave readers scratching their heads about what is given as the correct answer. He writes:

"Suppose you are shown the four cards marked with the following symbols: D F 3 7 You are then asked which two cards you must turn over to see if any of the cards violate the following rule:

If the letter D is on one side, then there will be a numeral 3 on the other.

Which two cards do you turn over?"

Morris's answer, cards, D and 7 is partially correct, but what about the card with the F? According to the directions it also has to be turned over (to see if there's a D there) making it three cards that must be turned over, not two. This error resulted because Morris left out the following proviso, namely that the cards always have a letter on one side and a number on the other.

This is an excellent idea for a book, but I don't think Richard Morris realized its potential.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “Understanding Evolution and Ourselves”

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Morris after earning his PhD in Physics went to San Francisco and in 1968 began publishing "hippie tabloids". He continued as a poet, play-write and author, taking up "mainstream science books" starting in 1979. The Evolutionists was written in 2001, 2 years before the author's death, to address the ongoing controversy between Stephen Jay Gould, et al and the more conventional evolutionary biologists represented by Richard Dawkins as well as Evolutionary Psychologists like Stephen Pinker.

Morris does a good job of presenting both sides of each debate and reminding the reader that none of these scientists doubt evolution; the debate is more about method and whether there are other factors than natural selection. Despite its age, The Evolutionists is still worth reading as an overview of the players and the topics. He has a straight-forward scientist-to-layman approach that keeps the proper practice of science clear.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN OVERVIEW OF A NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AFFECTING EVOLUTION

Richard Ward Morris (1939--003) was an American author, editor, and poet. He wrote in the Preface to this 2001 book, "Although there is broad agreement among evolutionary scientists on many points, there are important scientific issues that remain unsettled. I have written this book to explain what the arguments are about, to summarize those on each side, to take a look at the relevant empirical evidence, and to suggest what kinds of evidence are needed to bring the controversies to an end. It would be foolish to come down in favor of one side of another while controversy is still raging within the community of evolutionary biologists, so I have taken no sides in the arguments." (Pg. x)

Chapters include "The Fossil Record and the Evidence for Evolution"; "How Gradual is Evolution?"; "Evolutionary Psychology," etc.

About Stuart Kauffman's computer models of genetic networks, he wrote, "Since Kauffman's ideas have not been empirically tested, there are questions about the extent to which his models accurately represent biological reality. There is still widespread skepticism among biologists about this matter. Some of them have suggested that one can get anything out of a computer model, depending on the way one sets it up and the numbers one puts in. Many of them feel input based on observation of real biological organisms is lacking." (Pg. 136)

Of Derek Freeman's conclusions in his book, Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Pelican), he states, "But Freeman's findings aren't quite as conclusive as they might appear to be. Freeman studied a different village than the one studied by Mead, and he did his work some four decades later. In the intervening years, a U.S. military base had been established in Samoa, which may have had an influence on Samoan culture in general. Freeman interviewed some of Mead's informants in the role of an honorary chieftain. If they told him a different story, this could have partly been due to the fact that an elderly woman might tell a different story to a high-ranking male than the one she told to a young woman when she was an adolescent. Some psychologists have described Mead as the victim of a hoax. However, the facts are not perfectly clear." (Pg. 165-166)

This book has some interesting "overviews" of several scholarly controversies; but those seeking deeper analysis will perhaps have to look elsewhere (Morris provides a helpful "Selected Bibliography").