Rating: 
Summary: Short introduction to the Darwin Wars
Review: Anyone looking for a readable short and unbiased ('Dawkinsite' in opinions, but he still gives Gould a lot of credit) overview of current arguments in evolutionary theory, then this is your book
Rating:
Summary: Forever knocking heads?
Review: As anyone who has read even one book on evolution will know the names most likely to be mentioned are Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. They are usually referred to not only for their very different views on evolution, but also because in the often contentious and very public debates on these issues, these two gentlemen act as champions for opposing camps. Gould through his books, but also famously in a series of articles and letters in the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. Dawkins prefers to limit his books to scientific arguments and rebuttals and reserves his critical comments for his public engagements.With a title DAWKINS vs GOULD the focus is naturally on these two combatants and because both are brilliant thinkers and prolific writers it makes for some stimulating and very interesting reading. The only problem with this book is that by narrowly limiting the discussion to these two men, some readers may remain unaware that they are merely representative of a much larger debate involving most of the scientific community. A debate that covers topics such as human morphology and intelligence, human origins, intelligent design vs creationism. The field of enquiry involved is much wider than evolution and includes genetics, sociobiology, primatology and paleontology to name a few. As it relates to the two specific positions of DAWKINS vs GOULD though this litte book offers a concise and fairly complete encapsulation of the subject. Dawkins' position is sometimes called reductionist or minimalist in that he sees the gene (a selfish one) as the principal explanatory agent. From it, all we see around us are adaptations. Gould has a more catholic or broader approach and sees exceptions to the rule. Chance and his pet subject of "punctuated equilibrium" are seen as interrupting the smooth progression of linear adaptive evolution. Gould believes that there is a limit to scientific explanations but Dawkins is of the view that testable and provable hypotheses exist as explanations for all seemingly random events. This view is called "Ultra-Darwinism". Although Gould may have a catholic view in the normative sense of the word with an expansive view, don't for a minute think that this extends in any way to be accomodating towards creationism. Just about the only area where Gould and Dawkins don't knock heads is in their dissmissive view of creationism's equally dismissive view of the reality of evolution.
Rating: 
Summary: A Popular Account of Popular Accounts
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent synthesis
Review: I found Kim Sterelny's review to be a very accurate yet understandable summary. I have read many books written by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, so I already had a rough sketch of their contention. Sterelny's book was a great way to solidify the nature of Gould and Dawkins' scientific conflict and a great way to fill in the gaps. I was particularly grateful by the Gould section. Dawkins has stated his views on evolution and Gould quite extensively, but I have been less exposed to Gould's original writings on punctuated equilibrium (probably because, as Sterelny noted, Gould has written about the subject mostly in essays and scientific papers). The Gould section in this book was a great clarification of punctuated equilibrium and other Gould theories. I have not heard the opinions of the title subjects on this book, although I would very much like to. But for the moment, I found 'Dawkins vs. Gould' to be an objective, impartial and fair description of this well-known scientific clash.
Rating:
Summary: Good, it gives too much importance to some unimportant detai
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Should have remained a thesis
Review: I'll be upfront and say that I have no background in biology, rather physics and astronomy. But that shouldn't preclude me from understanding why two famous science authors of our era disagree on evolution. The language in this book was pitched at too high a level for me to understand and I resented this throughout. The only reason I persevered was that it is 140 pages long. In the end I did gain some understanding as to why there is difference between Dawkins and Gould, but I still have no greater understanding of evolution. This book, whilst probably worthy of merit from those within the evolutionally literate community, should not be promoted as a science book for the masses - it only serves to further alienate them from science.
Rating:
Summary: The Virtue of Brevity
Review: Interested in the genuine scientific (and philosophical controversy) about evolution? Before starting on the first chapter of Stephen Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", try "Dawkins versus Gould" by Kim Sterelny. It is about the same length as Chapter One of Gould's magnum opus and coherently discusses the profound differences between these two great evolutionary biologists. This book should be a must-read for anyone interested in evolution.
Rating:
Summary: A pacifier from the Pacific
Review: 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]
Rating:
Summary: A pacifier from the Pacific
Review: 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]
Rating:
Summary: Useful to a narrow audience
Review: One of the wonders of the Internet was supposed to be the way it could get niche ideas and products into the hands of the very few who might be interested in them, and I am happy to report that it seems to be working. There cannot be a great mass of people who are (a) both aware of and highly interested in the conflict between evolutionary biology popularizers Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, but (b) lacking in sufficient time and education to satisfy their curiosity from primary materials. But for those few who are, as I was, interested in a layperson's outline of the points of conflict between the Dawkins and Gould camps, Kim Sterelny has written one. 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.
| 
