Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?

by Michael Ruse

Book Overview

The intricate forms of living things bespeak design, and thus a creator: nearly 150 years after Darwin's theory of natural selection called this argument into question, we still speak of life in terms of design--the function of the eye, the purpose of the webbed foot, the design of the fins. Why is the "argument from design" so tenacious, and does Darwinism--itself still evolving after all these years--necessarily undo it?

The definitive...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0674016319
• ISBN13: 9780674016316
• Release Date: September 2004
• Publisher: Harvard University Press
• Length: 384 Pages
• Weight: 0.95 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.5" x 9.1"

Customer Reviews

Informative and fun to read

This is a well written book, and it has plenty of fascinating material. Ruse begins with a discussion of what "purpose" is. That means understanding that causes precede effects. And it means understanding that objects can have purposes: a watch can have a purpose, namely to tell time. A bread knife can have a purpose, namely to cut bread. And so on. But what is the purpose of, um, the planet Jupiter? Or of Niagara Falls? We soon see that inanimate objects can be purposeless. And when we look at animate objects, such as eyes or entire creatures, we see that these can fail to have any overall purpose in a Darwinian world. Ruse then gets to the issue of complexity. Does apparent complexity of some entities show that they have purposes? No. And he shows how Hume argued that apparent complexity in the world may be deceptive. I wish that Ruse had spent some time on the following argument against design: who designed god? If god didn't need to be designed, why did the observed universe need to be designed? If god needed a designer, was that designer bigger, tougher, and more complex than god or weaker and simpler? And who designed the designer that designed god? But Ruse spares us what I think is actually a good set of questions here. Ruse then discusses Darwinian evolution and adaptation. And we see some interesting examples. There's a fine discussion of male-to-female ratios at birth and the connection to survival and reproduction. "High ranking" females of some species have more male offspring (consistent with the idea that such offspring will do well in competing for mates) while "low ranking" females have more female offspring (consistent with the idea that almost all females will reproduce). We also get to read about behavior that seems only partially adaptive, such as the breeding of dunnocks, as well as the tomography of some square-shaped bacteria in saline pools in the Sinai. Those of us who read books about evolution often see design used as a metaphor. Ruse discusses this. It isn't so much that we're using the language of Design. That's fine if such language is appropriate. But is it? And in some cases, it certainly makes sense. The book concludes with a chapter on "Intelligent Design." Ruse politely demolishes some of the arguments made by some of the modern proponents of this outdated idea. And he also talks about Dawkins, who claims that Darwinism is a major challenge to religious belief. Is Dawkins right? Well, yes, he is. It is indeed a challenge to religious belief. And Ruse makes the point that one can argue in favor of religious belief anyway, but not by arbitrarily dismissing either Darwin or Dawkins. I enjoyed reading this book, and I recommend it.

Good Synthesis

Another interesting and well written book by Michael Ruse. In this book, Ruse explores the nature and role of teleological thinking about the natural world in the development of evolutionary theory. As well, he investigates the status of teleological thinking related to the natural world in relation to theology. In a shorthand way, this is concise history and commentary on the famous argument from design, one of the classis 'proofs' of the existence of a beneficient deity. Ruse decomposes the argument from design into 2 components, the argument to complexity and the argument to design. The former is a conclusion that aspects of the biological world have elements of goal directed function, analogous to conscious design. The latter argument is then that the existence of purposeful complexity is evidence for a deity. Ruse provides a nice, concise history of different aspects of these arguments, starting with Plato and Aristotle, and moving through major Christian theologians. He then moves into the major skeptical assaults on the argument from design using Hume as the paradigmatic thinker, and the responses of a variety of thinkers, including the English theologian Paley and Kant. Ruse provides a nice analysis of how concerns with the argument to complexity and the complete argument from design informed and inspired the search for greater understanding of the living world. This culminates, somewhat ironically, in Darwin and Wallace's discovery of the ideas of evolution and selective forces driving evolution. Not surprisingly, given Ruse's stature as an excellent historian of biology, he provides a really nice concise history of the development of Darwin's ideas and carries the story of the ups and downs of the importance of selectionist ideas into the 20th century. This is very well done. Ruse is also particularly good on some aspects of 19th century philosophy of science and theology, particularly Anglican theology, which are intertwined with the development of evolutionary theory in interesting ways. Ruse ends up with a fairly orthodox, Darwin based view of the argument from design. The argument to complexity is affirmed based on natural selection but the argument to design is firmly but gently thrown into the garbage.The book concludes with a section on the reconciliation of Christion (or theistic beliefs in general) with a scientifically valid view of nature. Ruse's usually solid grasp of logic slips here somewhat. It is not particularly convincing, and unlike most of his work, is not written clearly.

Blueprints or blundering?

Darwin's great insight was the discovery that Nature isn't operating to a plan. For over two millennia, Western European thinkers, whether secular or religious, had contended otherwise. Nature, they claimed, whether divinely guided or not, exhibited the effect of instituted, unwavering patterns - the result of "design". Eyes, hands, the arrangement of flower petals were too complex to have occurred by chance, it was thought. Christian monotheists enshrined this view within religious dogma. Darwin's revolutionary Idea challenged that concept at its roots, thus toppling all established opinion. The Idea, refuting theologians and philosophers alike, became Dangerous. As Ruse points out, the traditional argument is still being used to contest Darwin's great insight into the driving force of life.In this superbly conceived and crafted survey of the traditions and their overthrow, Ruse again proves his worth both as a scholar and a writer. From Plato through Kant, from Descartes to Darwin, we are provided a tour of how humans have viewed Nature over many centuries. The examples are endless - the eye, the hand, the awesome variety of flowering plants all seem to exhibit something behind their structure. Ruse examines the result of "new" science challenging old dogmas during the Enlightenment. He shows how the reconciliation of evidence with faith became known as "natural theology". In other words, nature's wonders were evidence of the god's plan. Ruse follows the course of the reasoning of the adherents of "nature by design" up to the present. The opening chapters of this book are presented so skillfully it seems he is endorsing the traditional view. Nothing could be more mistaken. In one stroke, Darwin overthrew those dogmas and Ruse can present Darwin's impact like few others.Darwin demonstrated that what we see around us is a "snapshot" of natural history. Our view sees the result of ages of natural selection. Even with this great insight, Darwin lacked the information explaining the mechanics of natural selection. How did "modification with descent" [Darwin's preferred usage] work down the generations. Although natural selection underwent a brief regression with the re-discovery of Mendel's genetics, it revived with enhanced force in the 1930s. Ronald Fisher's mathematical analysis demonstrated how to integrate natural selection with genetics to found what is now known as "neo-Darwinism". The revelation of DNA's structure consolidated that merger, leaving natural selection stronger than ever.The idea of "design" in nature retains a rearguard force of snipers still asserting an "intelligent designer". Ruse presents the ideas of Behe, Dembski and Johnson in their assault on natural selection. He delicately analyses their arguments and logic. Then, he gently but firmly consigns their ill-founded proposals to the historical rubbish heap. They, unlike Kant or Descartes, have the evidence before them, either discounting or avoidi

Darwin and Design: creative tension in science

Michael Ruse book is a valid contribution to the understanding of the debate that currently surrounds evolution and intelligent design. If Richard Dawkins can say that scientific evidence shows a universe without design, it is only fair that those scientists who disagree with this claim can refute it on equal terms. If Richard Dawkins can say that evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, it is only fair that other scientists may say that intelligent design or biblical creationism allows them to be intellectually fulfilled theists or deists. If Richard Dawkins can use "bad design" as evidence of evolution, it is only fair that other scientists may use good design and extremely good design as evidence of creation. I think that instead of making this debate a very nasty one, on the basis of outdated naturalistic and materialistic assumptions, all scientists should explore the creative tension and competition it generates, and make the most out of it. After all, the BBC News recently reported that in England the best scientific papers came from a school where evolutionism and creationism were taught on an equal basis, and because of this fact more schools will be teaching both perspectives in England (in spite of Dawkins oposition, who else?).

On Darwin and Design

Because it is the one who senses he is holding to the short end of the stick, in a given debate, who is usually most willing to leave it stalemate, I am in general suspicious of those who claim that the design debate is at an impasse. Nevertheless, honest disagreements, which are held up on the basis of honest convictions, do exist. One might simply give up. Alternatively, one might do well to ask how it is that we came to the convictions-those which suggest an apparent aporia-to which we so resolutely hold. An appropriate place to begin this task is with history. For this reason, I find Michael Ruse's genealogy of the concept of design, in Darwin and Design, to focus the debate in an admirable way. The reader, who would respond by saying that simply understanding the origin of a belief is an insufficient basis for evaluation, will not find the analysis and argument disappointing. History and argument are interwoven into etiology throughout. The reader who is, nevertheless, simply concerned with the contemporary, will find a guide to the views of proponents for intelligent design, such as Behe and Dembski, as well as their critics. In short, the book is well designed for the individual whose end is to understand the broad context in which the debate occurs. The narrative is suitably fit for those who want to increase their understanding with respect to the arguments for and against the teleological argument in its more modern habitat.