THE MYTHOLOGY OF EVOLUTION

Chris Bateman offers in this book a set of myths (metaphors or stories) which he suggests are at the base of evolutionary theory as currently understood, believed and explained by specialists. For each myth he puts down, Chris supplies an alternative contra-view which, he suggests, should replace his original description of the myth. Chris suggests seven possible myths which are commonly quoted as givens in most books and papers published today.

Bateman's Myth 1 concerns an imagined ladder of progress. The use of 'Ladder' seems to presume some sort of upward and directed progress as time goes on. Contra-view on Myth 1: Many unwarranted assumptions are embedded in this idea. Though few scientists might explicitly believe this today, it still runs rampant in much popular science fiction.

Chris suggests that we should replace the idea of a 'ladder' with his alternative contra-view. Instead of referring to a ladder, we should refer to a chain of inheritance, which seems to connect all life together into one complex process, with no defined top point which can be labelled as 'progress'. Nor indeed any clarity between each event which we might label as a 'step'.

Myth 2 lies in the phrase survival of the fittest, initially due to Herbert Spencer, though nowadays we may want to call it Social Darwinism. Contra-view: Myth 2 seems to be either self-evident, what actually survives is that which survives; or it actually wrong. Who knows which? But that is not our present concern. Bateman suggests that we should use instead the phrase Refinement of Possibilities, which living beings seem to develop for coping with life, and so somehow encourages the survival of their whole species. Myth 3 is contained in the phrase Selfish Gene, much used in the earlier writings of Richard Dawkins, which insists that the continuation of any species can be totally explained using only genes. Contra-view: Dawkins has obviously changed his mind on this issue, and his own later writings move to a very different and apparently opposing view; that collaboration between any two species could lead to the survival of both species. Bateman suggests that Dawkins' original phrase should be replaced by the idea that all the characteristics of a species, including its genes, could have advantages which persist among its successors.

Myth 4 is the idea of Kin Selection. This is related to Myth number 3, but is more general. How can the Genes or anything else which might cause any particular member of a group to do better in life have any effect on the success or failure of the species as a whole? We don't know. And there are many other problems with this view as well. Contra-view: Chris suggests that this myth hides a much more important concept, that co-operation and trust between family members gives an advantage to the survival of the species as a whole.

Myth 5 says that Design is found in Nature. Contra-view: Arguers about Design seem unaware that Kant showed up clearly the limitations of this concept over 200 years ago. But looking harder, the phrase hides the useful metaphor of Nature suggests an Intelligent Designer, which should be used instead.

Myth 6 is the concept of Adaptationism. This is the belief that we can completely explain life using only the principles of Natural Selection, whatever they might be. Contra-view: Life seems to continue as a consequence of some necessary conditions, but what is Natural Selection? We can say only that continuing life seems be subject to some conditions, of which we are not fully aware.

There is a final Myth 7, which extends beyond Science, unlike the previous six which concern only Evolution. Bateman's Myth 7 is that only Science is True. Contra-view: True ideas arise only from Stories, that is, fictitious metaphors conceived in the mind. In fact, our minds can model reality only by constructing such stories. So 'Truth' can be approached, like other all-embracing ideas only as a story in our minds, that is, a fiction.

The reviewer would agree with Bateman in that I would prefer Bateman's contra-views to the beliefs described in the original myths which he enumerates. And I would also hope to see Bateman's philosophy further developed than that presented in this book.

I would personally regard every aspect of the scientific outlook as parts of a giant story, myth or Metaphor. And I would suggest that specialists have generally failed to consider any alternative and wider view of reality beyond the story of Science in which they place their faith and trust for all their work. Many scientists might claim not to believe anything except those facts which are demonstrated by repeatable experiments. Yet they are curiously opposed to testing their theory that science is 'true' in some absolute sense. In fact, they seem to brook no discussion about their views on this problem. I would suggest that their attitude is very close to those who do not allow their theological views to be questioned. And I would not regard the Story of Science (the Science Myth) as any truer than any of the many other stories or myths we seem to need to live by as we travel a complex path through what we call reality.

I would also add the problem of the language barrier to the many raised by Bateman here. I would suggest that all theories which can be conceived by humans can be explained to another person only through talking to them, that is, by using words to describe the new idea. Any theory in the mind of a scientist can be transferred to the mind of another human only by using words which the other one already 'understands', that is, with which they are already familiar. But if one is trying to explain a brand new idea to another human, then there may not be any familiar words available to you. This means that you must fall back on metaphors ("A is like B"), which can only suggest a certain 'likeness', something hopefully close to what you are trying to explain, but not identical to what you are aiming at. The group of metaphors describing what you are trying to transmit is a myth. But any myth is not true absolutely; It can only be a traditional story which gives the gist of what its supporters want to transmit. We should be grateful to Chris Bateman for his close examination of terms that are commonly used used in traditional evolutionary theory without examination and also for the alternative views which he presents.