Human nature after Darwin : a philosophical introduction

Having read many books on both Darwinian evolution and philosophy, I was intrigued by this book, which was advertised as an exploration of the philosophical implications of evolution in general, including evolutionary psychology.

The author's original purpose of the book was to be strictly a general introductory college text to philosophy, a "Logic 101" textbook as it were. The author indicates that she originally planned to have three main themes for the examples and exercises in the book, but that when she discovered that the theme of evolution had so many common logical errors used by those arguing about it, she decided to devote the book exclusively to the theme of Darwinism. The legacy of that original goal is still evident in the book, and it can be used as a Logic 101 textbook. For example, each section of each chapter ends with exercises for the student, and answers to the exercises are found in the back of the book. (Those exercises use the other two themes that Richards had originally planned to include in the book.)

As far as attacking the issue of the philosophical implications of Darwinism, the author admits that she will go excruciatingly slowly in making her points, and she does. However, she is not so much trying to cover a lot of ground in the topic as she is trying to show how to apply basic philosophical reasoning to any topic whatsoever, and the topic that she has picked is Darwinism. The typical reader might get impatient with this deliberate slowness, so I cannot give it five stars.

Nevertheless, the topic deserves to be analysed with deliberate speed. Many thinkers in our culture write at length on the religious, social, and philosophical implications of the different versions of Darwinian evolution, and Richards systematically shows that many of them, on both sides of various controversies, commit logical fallacies that make their claims invalid. As she points out in her conclusion: "If your reasoning from premises about facts to conclusions about actions goes wrong because of muddle, or equivocation, or mistakes in logic, then your practical conclusions will be just as unreliable as if you get the facts wrong" (269).

A quick review of the subtopics covered: 1) how solid is the epistemology and philosophical basis of Darwinism as a scientific discipline? (answer: solid); 2) what are the different varieties of Darwinism? (answer: see below); 3) how does one construct logical conditionals to investigate flaws in reasoning? 4) do different versions of Darwinism have different implications for free will and determinism? (answer: no); 5) do some versions of Darwinism imply that people are no longer responsible for their actions? (answer: no); 6) do different versions of Darwinism have different implications for whether or not true altruism can exist? (answer: no); 7) does a denial of the existence of an omnipotent God mean that objective moral truth is not possible? (answer: depends); 8) are we justified, as Philip Kitcher claimed, in demanding a higher burden of proof for evolutionary psychology than for other scientific disciplines? (answer: no); and 9) what are the really different implications for living one's life among the various options discussed in the book?

Richards lays out a spectrum of belief from a) strict theism that denies all Darwinism, b) dualism that accepts biological evolution but rejects strict metaphysical materialism, c) Darwinism that accepts metaphyical materialism but rejects the claims of evolutionary psychology, and d) a Darwinism that accepts evolutionary psychology. One objection that I personally have with her set of options is that it excludes my own philosophical position, which is a modified dualism that accepts many of the claims of evolutionary psychology. Her implication is that my own position is logically impossible, a claim about which I would beg to differ. But as Richards points out, because she lays out her arguments clearly, one can spot the point in the chain of logical inference where one disagrees with her. So even when one does disagree, it is easy to articulate the basis for that disagreement.

So for what it sets out to do, this book succeeds. It is a pity that it is not more widely read, especially by those who argue about the broader implications of Darwinism.