Pictures of Scotland.org Canadian Amazon Store

Sterelny, a philosophy professor, is strict about giving credit to each camp where credit is due, and about identifying his own biases. He bends over backwards to be fair, and he succeeds.

Sterelny writes at such a level that if your only education in evolutionary biology comes from popular works like Dawkins's and Gould's, his overview is entirely comprehensible. Though this was good for me, it means that he is probably writing far below the level of most people interested in the convroversies he describes.

I suppose it is odd for someone who actually is in the market for a book just like the one Sterelny wrote to wonder who would actually buy such a book, but that is the position I find myself in. One really should be at least somewhat familiar with the Dawkins/Gould divide before reading this book, but if you are too familiar with it, that means you have education enough that this book is pitched too low for you. Those on the razor's edge will get the most out of it. And the delight of the Internet is that there is a good chance enough of that rare breed of people can find this book that it was worth writing, and that those of you in the narrow audience that will find it worth reading -- as I did -- are able to find it.


Good, it gives too much importance to some unimportant detai   August 15, 2003
I recommend this book to anyone who want's to identify and familiarize with different currents of thought in evolution, but this two gigants are not the only ones with opinion. Gould and Dawkins, both great scientists and great thinkers, are not the only ones with valid opinions on this subject, what they have that makes them exploitable is a long history of mild or irrelevant disagreements. A mild disagreement for example is that Dawkins goes for the gene as the target for selection, Gould don't think that way. An irrelevant disagreement may be that Dawkins is an atheist and Gould really believes in God. The principal flaw I see is that there are more players in this game, there's also Ernst Mayr, for example, that doesn't support the gene as the unit of selection, and doesn't support punctuated equilibrium either. But all of them agree in most of the other basis of the theory, though the unit of selection is an important point.


A pacifier from the Pacific   June 12, 2003
Kim Sterelny's overview of the Stephen Gould - Richard Dawkins conflicting views of evolution is a masterful summation. Setting himself an immense task, he addresses the material published by the two evolutionists, assessing evidence, logic and interpretation. To Sterelny's lasting credit, personality is almost entirely omitted in this account. A brief education background note [Dawkins studied under Tinbergen, Gould's mentor was George Gaylord Simpson] and Sterelny moves quickly to the essence of the debate. His presentation makes this a fine introduction to the issues involved.

Debate is a gentle word to apply to some of the acrimonious exchanges the pair engaged in either directly or through proxies. The opening shot was Gould's scornful review of Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" in which Dennett challenged Gould and Eldredge's notion of punctuated equilibrium as setting the pace of evolution. The clash brought to light more fundamental differences in outlook - gene-centred evolution or a multi-level interacting set of forces. As Sterelny ultimately points out, the two are subject to merging into a broader synthesis. Dawkins has made that point frequently, as Sterelny notes, but that reality failed to find fertile ground on this side of the Atlantic.

Gene-centred evolution results in the creation of adaptations through mutations. Whether these adaptations are successful over time is the story of evolution. Gould found many ways to challenge this theme, chiefly because it would apply equally to human evolution, something Gould always found abhorrent. Gould's argument went deeper than human evolution. He advanced "contingency" and mass extinctions of whatever cause, as more viable mechanisms than what he labelled "gene centrism". Sterelny presents both positions with admirable clarity and laudable equilibrium. It would be churlish to criticise Sterelny's temperate treatment of Gould's notions. Dawkins and Dennett have already performed the task sufficiently, although Sterelny skirts Dennett's examination.

The loss of Gould to cancer has not quelled the debate, thus proving it wasn't simply a clash of personalities. A Gould "camp", with adherents on both sides of the Atlantic, maintains the heated dispute. Lewontin and Kamin in America and the Rose cabal in the UK still launch verbal missiles at the Dawkins target. Sterelny keeps his focus tight in this book, not being diverted to these disputants. In performing this feat, Sterelny might be criticised for failing to note why the debate is worth notice by a wider audience. He certainly hasn't written this for the academic community, although many in other disciplines might benefit from his insights and brisk narrative. Sterelny's position as a philosopher located in New Zealand is sufficient example to show how far the debate has reached. Its very universality might have prompted him to reflect on its impact on social questions. Even so, his effort is highly commendable and deserves the widest possible readership. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]


In response to the nonscientist   April 21, 2003
 0 out of 1 found this review helpful

Thanks for using this BOOK REVIEW section to enlighten us all on your personal opinion of evolutionary biology. Yet another example of nonscientists trying to sneak their opinions on the masses when it's completely irrelevant. You speak of Dawkins and Gould as resorting to circular reasoning in their arguments, however, this book is not an argument over the reality of evolution, it is a debate about how natural selection works and at what level. Had they been asked to state the evidence for natural selection, both Dawkins and Gould would be able to present compelling data to support it, as would any biologist.


A Popular Account of Popular Accounts   March 15, 2003
I am of a few minds about this book. It has both positive and negative characteristics, depending upon the questions one asks of it.

On the one hand, this is a book about evolution. Given that many parts of society still cling to their various Creation Myths, any source that provides a rational framework for discussion about how the world works should be highly rated indeed. Sterelny provides a biological basis sufficient to spark interest in a virgin mind. If you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory, then Dawkins vs. Gould (as opposed to not reading on the subject at all) is perhaps worthwhile.

On the other hand, Dawkins vs. Gould is clearly the work of an under-informed, non-biologist. The debate from both sides of the Adaptationist Programme (i.e., the school of thought whence all evolutionary change results from natural selection) runs much deeper than just being between a well-spoken advocate, Dawkins, and Gould, an articulate critic. Stated plainly, Sterelny provides a passable popular account of the brilliant popular works of Dawkins and Gould. The question becomes, Why not simply read The Extended Phenotype, Wonderful Life and the like?

On yet a third limb, I was somewhat disappointed by the physical volume of Dawkins vs. Gould. For the quality of the binding and grade of paper, I would have expected to pay half as much as the price suggested on the back cover.

So, to sum up... Dawkins vs. Gould by Kim Sterelny is better than nothing, but the well-stocked library of evolution will not miss it.