662
PARTISAN REVIEW
If
Hacking takes up the pros and cons of socially constructing damn
near everything, Ruse at least has the advantage of focusing squarely on
evolution.
Mystery of Mysteries
not only follows the twists and turns of
the long debate about evolution, but it also provides lively portraits of
the major participants. Here, for example, is a snippet from the section
devoted to Charles Darwin:
Start with religion....The young Darwin moved from Christianity
to deism, and evolution was for him, as for his grandfather, a con–
firmation of his religious position rather than an anomaly. This was
the philosophy of the
Origin:
"Authors of the highest eminence
seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been
independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we
know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the pro–
duction and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the
world should have been due to secondary causes, like those deter–
mining the birth and death of the individual." Later in life, partic–
ularly under the influence of Huxley, Darwin's beliefs faded into
agnosticism. Even then, however, he did not go through the
Origin
systematically removing references to God.
Ruse provides equally compelling (and balanced) portraits of con–
temporaries such as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward O. Wilson. The
result is a study that charts the progress of thinking about evolution and
that shows how what was once a debate became a bitter dispute. Here
it might be helpful to think of evolution as a kaleidoscope. Turn the
cylinder one way and its shapes arrange themselves into one pattern;
give it a quarter twist and you end up with something else, equally plau–
sible so far as Ruse is concerned. My hunch is that Hacking would feel
much the same way-that is, if we substituted one social construction
of
x
for another.
Both Hacking and Ruse provide insider information delivered from a
vantage point well above the fray that the science wars have produced.
My hunch is that those on either side of the aisle will be unhappy with
at least some of their observations-that is not only to be expected, but
applauded. The consequences of science are simply too important for
scientists and nonscientists alike to settle for tunnel vision, half-truths,
and gobbledygook.
Sanford Pinsker
