"Darwinian Fairytales" by David Cove

[dogjones]

Hey all, has anyone heard of this book? Apparently written by an atheist who 'believes in evolution' but disagrees with a lot of current wisdom?

I googled it but I can't find much on it - so it can't be all that popular.

[pgwenthold]

If that is the case, why call it "Darwinian Fairytales"? "Current wisdom" is well beyond "Darwinian."

[drkitten]

If that is the case, why call it "Darwinian Fairytales"?

Possibly because the author is a lying slime-bucket.

Possibly because the author generally doesn't get to pick his own title, and the publisher thought he would increase sales by misrepresenting the contents of the work.

[Beady]

I googled it but I can't find much on it - so it can't be all that popular.

Google was apparently the wrong search engine (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-3177250-4015946?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=darwinian+fairy+tales) to use.

[ponderingturtle]

Google was apparently the wrong search engine (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-3177250-4015946?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=darwinian+fairy+tales) to use.

From the amazon page on it (http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Fairytales-Selfish-Heredity-Evolution/dp/1594032009/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3536745-6963026?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173707422&sr=8-1)

From Publishers Weekly
Like a clever agnostic in Sunday school, Stove (Scientific Irrationalism) relentlessly frustrates Darwinism in this posthumous collection of 11 linked essays. To the chagrin of creationists, however, he also takes pains to note he is of no religion and believes it's "overwhelmingly probable that humans evolved from some other animal." His more modest objective is to show that Darwinism, while largely valid, fails to explain known humanity. Unfortunately, this effort is confused: if Darwin's theory of evolution were true, "there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive," when "it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that." To illustrate, Stove cites altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have. He goes so far as to condemn Darwinism as a "ridiculous slander on human beings," whom he views as mammals, but not animals in the evolutionary sense. The great unexamined problem in all of this is how did humans jump off the evolutionary track? This is not to say that Stove, who made a name for himself as a conservative philosopher (most recently at the University of South Wales), is necessarily wrong. Rather, he exists in a skeptical abyss, borrowing from two distinct and potentially correct perspectives. This makes his work provocative, but flawed.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

[Cuddles]

Hmmm, according to the review he rejects evolution because he wants humans to be special. He claims (or claimed at least, apparently this was published posthumously) to be an atheist and to believe in evolution, but quite obviously this isn't true. There is no way for evolution to be true for all except one species, therefore he cannot believe evolution is true at all. His arguments are inconsistent with both themselves and reality. As far as I can tell, without actually reading the book, there is no science involved at all. He doesn't like Darwinism because it doesn't say humans are special, therefore Darwinsim is wrong. According to the review he doesn't even attempt to explain why humans are different or how this would have happened.

if Darwin's theory of evolution were true, "there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive," when "it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that."
He goes so far as to condemn Darwinism as a "ridiculous slander on human beings," whom he views as mammals, but not animals in the evolutionary sense.

Quotes are from the review, the parts in inverted commas are quotes from the book.

[Orangutan]

The guy should read some Dawkins.

[ponderingturtle]

From here (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6891)

Stove skewers modern defenders of Darwinism such as E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins, refuting their false assertions and faulty assumptions with blistering logic and devastating wit. He shows the hollowness of generally accepted Darwinian notions such as "Every organism has as many descendants as it can"; "Anything that hurts chances for survival will be rooted out by the process of natural selection"; "People who are prosperous and fortunate will have more children than the poor and disadvantaged"; and more.

Looks like the author is all about setting up strawmen in place of evolution and attacking them because they are wrong.

[Beady]

Hmmm, according to the review...

...if Darwin's theory of evolution were true, "there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive," when "it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that."


Umm, that competition does exist in humans, as anyone who has been present the morning after Thanksgiving, when Walmart's doors open, could tell you. This guy doesn't seem to have been too keen an observer of his fellows.

Note to Orangutan: That's "rapture."

[Fnord]

It's simple; Darwin got a few things wrong (Eyes evolved from freckles? Really?) Any scientist worth his or her credentials will get some details wrong on the first try. Freud's theory of the psyche doesn't hold up well to many current theories (although the practice of psychoanalysis is still viable). Even Einstein thought at first that his theories alone could unify gravity with the other known forces.

The Theory of Evolution will likely need a few tweaks far into the future, and there will likely be gaps in our knowledge simply because some things just don't fossilize well. To call Darwin's theories "fairytales" sounds too much like religious fundamentalist rhetoric.

IMHO, of course. Your results may vary.

[athon]

I've read a couple of articles and a number of excerpts from the book. It's so pitiful that it's sad somebody can so completely misunderstand Darwin. I don't think he's read any of Darwin's work, to be honest. What I've read is essentially straw man after straw man, mistatements and lies.

Evolution is not difficult to understand. Why do people so readily do this?

Athon

[RenaissanceBiker]

if Darwin's theory of evolution were true, "there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive," when "it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that."


He obviously never saw Blood Simple.
The world is full o' complainers. An' the fact is, nothin' comes with a guarantee. Now I don't care if you're the pope of Rome, President of the United States or Man of the Year; somethin' can all go wrong. Now go on ahead, y'know, complain, tell your problems to your neighbor, ask for help, 'n watch him fly. Now, in Russia, they got it mapped out so that everyone pulls for everyone else... that's the theory, anyway. But what I know about is Texas, an' down here... you're on your own.