Darwin's Dangerous Idea

by Daniel C. Dennett

A 500-page book has to be pretty good before I'll recommend it to a friend. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett, is unfortunately not quite that good. To be fair, I think the book is aimed at an audience that is both more academic and more philosophy-oriented than I am; and as an intelligent layperson (my wife balked at this) I am at best part of a secondary audience that Dennett was aiming for.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is not about evolution, it is about the philosophical implications of evolution:

Darwin's idea... eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.

A well-chosen quote from pre-Darwin philosopher John Locke shows us how revolutionary Darwin's idea really was: "'And I appeal to everyone's own thoughts, whether he cannot as easily conceive Matter produced by nothing, as Thought produced by pure Matter...'" Before Darwin, the idea that our own minds had evolved, that 'Thought' could be produced by 'pure Matter,' was, almost literally, not conceivable. Darwin turned the philosophical universe upside-down; the fallout continues even today.

Darwin gave us an algorithmic process in the gradual accumulation of change, and showed how species could evolve using only that process. Dennett makes it clear that, as he sees it, the universe - from its inception right up to the present day - has been created using nothing but this slow algorithmic process. The universe has gotten along just fine without "skyhooks" of any kind: no Garden of Eden, no divine intervention, no von Daniken space aliens, no miracles of any sort. From its beginning as an explanation of speciation, Dennett extends Darwin's idea both backward and forward in the evolutionary timeline to show its explanatory power.

He extends Darwin's idea backward to explain not just the origin of species, but the origin of life itself from non-life. And, in an idea that may be familiar to science fiction fans, he discusses the possibility that the universe itself is somehow an evolutionary product. The physics of the universe is very finely balanced; alter the speed of light by a few miles per hour, or turn down the force of gravity a few percent, and stars might not form, or might explode instantly if they did form. Dennett argues that this apparent order does not require a divine creation thesis, any more than the wonderful and fragile order of life on our own world requires it, and the the same principles of continued change and gradual alteration that explains the origins of life might, perhaps, also explain the order in the universe.

Dennett extends Darwin's idea forward, as well, so that evolution explains not just the animals but the human species, and the human consciousness. He explores Dawkin's idea of memes, to see how the idea of evolution could influence, if not altogether explain, human culture.

Throughout, Dennett seldom uses examples from biology, because for the most part he is less interested in discussing evolution than its philosophical ramifications, but I think it weakens the explanations of evolution he does give, even if it strengthens his overall arguments. The exceptions to this are chapters 9 and 10, which I particularly recommend if you are a heavy reader of Stephen Jay Gould's many books:

Most of [Gould's work] is simply wonderful: astonishingly erudite, the very model of a scientist who recognizes, as my high-school physics teacher once said, that science, done right, *is* one of the humanities... The irony is that his own strenuous efforts to protect Darwinism have sometimes backfired.

Dennett feels that Gould's work, collectively, has produced some misconceptions about evolution that he must correct for his own arguments to be understood. Although I am not altogether sure that Gould has been quite as misleading as Dennett thinks, it is certainly pleasant and useful to get another perspective on some of Gould's work.

Dennett's writing is clear and elegant (except for very rare lapses into foreign languages or big philosophy words), and he demonstrates an occasional knack for pithy phrases. Nevertheless, there are some sections, even chapters, whose purpose remains unclear to me (though they are usually marvellously clear in and of themselves), and other sections I wish he had condensed. Dennett spends a fair bit of time early on explaining the Tree of Life and its relationship to Design Space, for example; and in Part 3, presumably the conclusion of the book, there is a chapter on ethics, without much mention of Darwin; and one on meaning, in which Dennett addresses several other philosophers by name, giving me the feeling of having walked into a conversation already in progress. Still, though I am not completely sure where he is going, and I could wish he were going there more quickly, Dennett has presented some fascinating ideas along the way.

© 1996, Greg Tillman.

latest update: May 30, 2001
www: www.prairienet.org/gpf
email: gpf@prairienet.org