Digital List Price: | $21.95 |
Print List Price: | $21.95 |
Kindle Price: | $13.17 Save $8.78 (40%) |
Your Memberships & Subscriptions
Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears (Routledge Classics) 2nd Edition, Kindle Edition
Price | New from | Used from |
- Kindle
$13.17 Read with Our Free App - Paperback
$14.84 - $19.10
- ISBN-13978-0415278331
- Edition2nd
- PublisherRoutledge
- Publication dateAugust 29, 2003
- LanguageEnglish
- File size2581 KB
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Mary Midgley (1919-2018) was one of the most renowned moral philosophers of her generation and the author of many books, including Beast and Man, Wickedness and The Myths We Live By. She has taken part in many broadcast events, including The Moral Maze and Woman's Hour.
--This text refers to the paperback edition.Review
-John Banville," The Irish Times
"A graceful, refreshing and enlightening book, applied philosophy that is relevant, timely and metaphysical in the best sense."
-" The New York Times Book Review
--This text refers to the paperback edition.
Product details
- ASIN : B0B7CS16RR
- Publisher : Routledge; 2nd edition (August 29, 2003)
- Publication date : August 29, 2003
- Language : English
- File size : 2581 KB
- Simultaneous device usage : Up to 4 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
- Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
- Enhanced typesetting : Not Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Not Enabled
- Sticky notes : Not Enabled
- Print length : 224 pages
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,192,431 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- #1,175 in Religious Philosophy (Kindle Store)
- #3,328 in Religious Philosophy (Books)
- #133,746 in Religion & Spirituality (Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Midgley begins by arguing that unlike Darwin's account of the theory of evolution (supposedly, although Darwin himself had elements of both of these in his account), two distinct fallacies have arisen in the interpretation of this account: the "Social Darwinist" distortion (perhaps best expressed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" invented by Herbert Spencer) and the Panglossian or "Escalator Fallacy" (the naïve belief in progress, first put into form by Lamarck). Midgley also comments on the underpinnings of Darwin's own writings (showing the influence of his extracurricular readings on his worldview) and the apparent conflict between religion and biology (which is believed to arise out of a fear of biology). These two fallacies will continue to appear over and over again in the writings of noted Darwinists, despite the claims of Darwinists to have eliminated both of them from their accounts once and for all. Midgley next considers the supposed competition between religion and science (showing how these alleged demarcation disputes actually arise from a fallacy made by both the overzealous religious and scientists). Midgley considers for example the debate over evolution between Bishop Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"). According to the popular understanding of this debate, it is maintained that Wilberforce simply waffled and appealed to emotion. However, as Midgley shows this is not what occurred; instead, it should be noted that Wilberforce called for evidence (which at the time Huxley could not have provided) and actually presented a coherent argument (being somewhat of a scientist in his own right). Huxley was also the first to consider the idea of science as a paid profession and not merely a gentlemanly pursuit. Midgley then considers the question of evolution as religion. She explains how it is useful to speak of such things as Marxism as religion, and that no one argues that (alleged) non-theistic religions such as the original form of Buddhism are in fact religions, thus it should also be useful to speak of evolution as a religion. Midgley then goes on to consider the so-called "Escalator Fallacy", showing how this fallacy lies at the heart of much of the prophesying made by scientists. Indeed, much of the appeal of the uncovering of human genetics is rooted in the idea of the creation of an "Omega man" or a "superman" (often amounting to a supposed increase in intelligence). This idea of the "Omega man" was first proposed by the religious Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, but it was later co-opted by atheistic scientists who became overly enamored of the fallacy of progress. Midgley also quotes extensively from the works of Nietzsche in this regard (making note of the role of eugenics in the breeding of the "superman"). Midgley considers some of the problems involved in genetic engineering and quotes such Darwinians as E. O. Wilson to illustrate the "Escalator Fallacy" in their thinking. Midgley also shows how the ideal of the "superscientist" is maintained as the goal of human evolution. (The undertones to such utopian thinking are indeed ominous.) Following this, Midgley considers various remarks made by the physicist Steven Weinberg and the biochemist Jacques Monod, which amount to a form of existentialism, mimicking Sartre. For instance, Monod maintains that the universe is a meaningless and dangerous place in which man lives as an alien and that man's only solace is to be found in science (why science should provide a source of redemption is of course never adequately explained). Such remarks are certainly religious. Monod makes war against "animism" which is what he beliefs to be the fallacies of progress and Social Darwinism; however, his own statements retain traces of both. Midgley next considers some of the antitheses which are alleged to exist between science and other forms of thinking. She shows how much of this type of thinking is highly problematic. Following this Midgley turns to the fallacy of Social Darwinism. Obvious cases of this are to be found in the writings of Spencer, the American eugenicists, and Adolf Hitler, but Social Darwinism also continually creeps up in the writings of the sociobiologists. Social Darwinism amounts to an affirmation of the Hobbesian ideal, a view of nature as "red in tooth and claw", and support for the philosophy of selfishness. For example, there is the statement of noted sociobiologist M. T. Ghiselin, "Scratch an `altruist' watch a `hypocrite' bleed." Further, Social Darwinism has frequently been used as a justification for the most rampant excesses of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. Midgley considers the question of selfishness in the writings of Dawkins (theorist of the "selfish gene") and Wilson (who claimed that life only existed so that DNA could make more DNA). Midgley shows how such claims regarding selfish genes are anthropomorphic and ill-founded. (A better demolition of Dawkins is provided in the work of David Stove.) Midgley then goes on to show the limits of individualism and the dangers of progress and the excesses of Enlightenment humanism. Midgley also makes some interesting remarks on rights and duties (the idea of "duty towards oneself"), the possibility of animal rights, and the need to rethink our position towards other species, ourselves, and the environment.
The thinking of Midgley in this book is important, because it reveals the religious underpinnings of many of the modern scientific notions (regarding progress and utopia or dystopia). Scientists who refuse to think critically about their endeavors run the risk of becoming inhuman. And, the damage that has been done by predatory excesses (both of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism) should not be underestimated. These are important words of wisdom that should be heeded especially by those who are least likely to listen.
The problem is, Midgley does not really understand evolution. Or science. Or scientific method. Or the difference between scientific publication and popular press. To her these all are forms of human opinion, on the same level as any other popular beliefs and discourses. The book might have been more interesting if it explored how scientific theories and debates arrive into the popular opinion, what are their vehicles, how are they reflected, presented and distorted. That could have been a very interesting view of the place of science in society, and of how scientists' human aspirations affect what they say.
Instead, Midgley mostly beats about the bush criticizing points made by biologists, philosophers and journalists, half daisy picking them to support her point, half accusing them of not understanding the real scientific theory of evolution. Which is ironic, since she does not seem to be too versed in it. Some of her bloopers are very telling, like her protest that genes cannot be "selfish" because they die in somatic cells. She did not understand the difference between the mass propagation of information in the pool and the fate of a particular copy of that information. If she did, she'd realize that if sacrificing some copies of a gene helps increase the collective strength of all copies in the pool, this sacrifice is economically profitable. In fact, it required no work from her to realize it: she might have *noticed* that point made several times in Dawkins' book. But she blissfully ignored the point which might have helped her understand the whole book. She had preferred to criticize irrelevancies like the word "selfish" in its title, and present it as proof that evolution has its own mythology propagated by evolutionists while pretending that it is science. In fact, she dwells much more on discussing social sciences (and things like social darwinism) than biology, quotes overwhelmingly more editorials than scientific papers, and prefers to dismantle far-fetched speculations made by scientists than their actual rigorous theories.
The book overall is vacuous and wordy. It makes no distinction between science, religion and popular press - in fact, it seems at times that the only connection Midgley has to science is popular press.
When she laments the exclusion of unfalsifiable kinds of thinking from science, accusing Thomas Huxley of it personally, one can really see the sloppy, wishy-washy kind of thinking Midgley herself has to offer. I am not sure if her repeated attempts to blur the border between mythological and scientific thinking are due to honest ignorance or to perniciousness, but that's what this book mostly amounts to. It's a sort of "opinion" thing itself, pointing finger and saying "you are no better" but providing only anecdotes and poorly digested popular reading as support.
But it is certainly not an attack on science either, because it is so vague, uninformed and irrelevant.
Top reviews from other countries

This came to a head in 2008 when Kroto, along with Dawkins and other anti-theist scientists, forced the resignation of Michal Reiss as Director of the Royal Society because Reiss was a clergyman who suggested science shouldn't dismiss pupils' views about creationism or intelligent design but should explain how such views were incompatible with science. The attacks on Reiss were not motivated by what he said but what he represented - dissent from the proposition that science and atheism are two sides of the same coin. It was an example of fundamentalist scientism at its worst and roundly condemned by all those, including Robert Winston, who value freedom of thought over imposed conformity. Although "Evolution As A Religion" was written two decades before the Royal Society revealed itself as the authoritarian dispenser of metaphysics under the guise of science, Midgley had already identified the scientism of Dawkins et.al.
Midgley argues that Marxism and evolutionism have been the two great faiths of modern times. Both expressed themselves as secular and social religions. Marxism in action undermined faith in its self-proclaimed role as the liberator of the working classes. Evolutionism gradually became "the creation myth of our age" in the form of Neo-Darwinism. This myth relies on its symbolic appeal rather than a description of its truth or falsity. The violent social and political environment of the past two-hundred years (Midgley doesn't mention the French Revolution but it remains the focal point for the modern world) has resulted in a "number of the elements which used to belong to traditional religion...........regrouping themselves under the heading of science, mainly around the concept of evolution." T H Huxley's prime aim was for science to supplant religion. J D Bernal, a recipient of the Stalin Peace Prize, argued the "aristocracy of scientific intelligence" would give rise to societies run by scientists. William Day used the same argument fifty years later suggesting that within10,000 years a scientific elite would emerge as a different species and rule those specimens of humanity which had been left behind. Such thinking came into contemporary Neo-Darwinist thinking via Social Darwinism, Marxist determinism and the enforced eugenics of the inter-war period. Bernal and Day presented their world view as if it was science. It wasn't.
The evolutionary model based on the inevitability of progress did not come from Darwin but an earlier generation. It served as weapon to bolster the image of scientists as superior beings. It gave support to the implicit racism of Imperialism and support for free market economies. The impact of Nazism and human experimentation reduced that image to one of the mad scientist producing the equally insane Boys from Brazil. Biological science cannot predict the future. Pretending it can is a delusion. Claims that science corrects dogma is denied by scientists' own dogmatic approach to science as superior to religion which is essentially a metaphysical standpoint not a scientific one. Science is laden with unacknowledged values although the sociobiologist E O Wilson presented materialistic science as a viable myth in competition with religion. Francis Crick claimed that science would produce a new set of beliefs about the nature of humanity. Religion was criticised for not being science and despised for raising questions about scientific impartiality in the pursuit of a world view which fails by its own standard of proof. It was scientific orthodoxy which rejected Galileo's heliocentric view of the world. It was also scientific orthodoxy which initially ignored Lynn Magulis's Gaia hypothesis until the paradigm shift so superbly described in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" took effect.
Midgley, whose rejection of Christianity was accepted matter-of-factly by her clergyman father, does not advocate a religious viewpoint. She acknowledges that "the more anthropomorphic a creed is, the more the notion of an arbitrary, personal will enters into thoughts of creation.... that notion is hostile to science." Science assumes a sense of order penetrable to the human mind. Yet science (as in the scientific method) also uses imagination. Midgely quotes T H Huxley's thoughts on the relevance and power of the imagination "within the limits laid down by science." As she points out science is populated by "narrow-minded, conformist sceptics". Bertrand Russell, in his debates with Copleston, refused to accept the universe had a reason for existing and therefore it was pointless to look for one. His successors have no such inhibitions, equating the universe with scientific discovery. Such claims lose the "vastness and mystery" of the universe and with it the "awe and reverence" which are essential factors in understanding mankind's perceptions of - and the place of humans - in it. Julian Huxley had no hesitation in describing this as a religious or spiritual experience.
Midgley regards evolutionary biology and related fields as selective research extrapolated to the whole biosphere where it is "supported" by computer simulations. The result is the imposition of a reductionist framework which denies the validity of other approaches. The late Harold Wilson was told, "never trust the experts". Midgley has put that advice into practice for which she deserves five stars. One suspects it will retain its validity long after the fashionable idea that science is truth is dead and buried.