"Do we really need another book about evolution?" I ask myself this question almost every day as I pore over the stacks of books and papers cluttering my apartment, the masses of literature forming a sort of scientific strata. It has been about two years since I first started saying that I was working on a book about evolution (I figured that if I believed I could do it I would eventually become motivated enough to do something about it) but for much of that time my efforts at actually producing anything were pitiful. It is true that I had more enthusiasm than knowledge during the first summer when I ordered more books than I was able to read, but the book took so long to start because I didn't have any vision. Even when I would spend my evenings tapping the keys of my old laptop things still didn't feel right; there were plenty of words on the page but there wasn't much tying the examples together.
My "Eureka!" moment came while reading Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (a book that, admittedly, I still have to finish); I could explain natural history in the context of the history of science, using both to reinforce each other. I originally wanted to call my book Archetypes and Ancestors, an alliterative title that I felt summed up the underlying concepts of my work. Unfortunately I had forgotten that Adrian Desmond had written a book with the same title, a book that I have since read and found invaluable. Titles aren't everything, though, and I've continued to use "archetypes and ancestors" as my anchoring concept.
All of the commentary I've provided so far has not answered my original question, however. There are seemingly innumerable books spanning over 150 years by a wide array of scientists, theologians, commentators, and others about evolution; do we really need another one? I am convinced that we do. Not only are many popular-audience books about evolution relatively dry and pock-marked by a fair amount of "textbook cardboard" but many books about evolution are written in the context of "the warfare between science and religion." It seems that evolution cannot be discussed without reference to creationism and the "science" sections of bookstores are overstuffed with books either trying to reconcile science with Abrahamic religion or highlight the conflicts between the two. Take the recent "Dover industry," for example. Since the 2005 trial there have been no less than four books dealing directly with the trial (Monkey Girl, 40 Days and 40 Nights, The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything, The Devil in Dover, and featured prominently in Flock of Dodos). There is nothing necessarily wrong with so many books about the important trial but I am somewhat concerned that actual science is being shortchanged when controversy is increasingly hyped. (I should also recognize that there are writers, like Carl Zimmer, who have done an excellent job popularizing science. I just think that we need more writers like him and fewer who produce books with titles like The Top 10 Myths About Evolution).
The perniciousness of modern creationism should not be ignored, nor do I think that it should be constantly invoked to provide context for discussions about evolution. When I first got serious about writing the book (but before I had a central theme) I began to write a chapter about creationism but ultimately sent it to the recycle bin. It was more of an aside that didn't really fit with the rest of what I was trying to do and the subject deserved enough attention to get another book entirely (a book that I may eventually write). Instead of giving Henry Morris and Ken Ham a forum in my own book I decided to keep their bad arguments in mind, using their claims as clues to what some major "hang ups" over evolution are.
If I tried to write a point-by-point refutation of creationism, chronologically plodding through the standard "history of life" (fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals -> humans), I would probably not create anything especially remarkable or important. It would be one more book added to a seemingly endless stream of books that seek to quickly refute creationism. Such books may have their place but I usually find them to be boring and shallow. Much like the natural evolutionary process the "evolution idea" is complex and filled with juicy details and I feel that too many books are concerned with convincing the reader rather than trying to enlighten them. We can make a strong logical case for evolution, but if we do so without passion or enthusiasm how can we expect our audience to understand how fascinating evolution really is?
There have been excellent books about evolution written over the past few years, The Ancestor's Tale, Your Inner Fish, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, and Evolution, being among them, but such books are far outnumbered by creationism vs. evolution tracts. No matter how many good books have already been produced I sincerely hope that popularizers will keep doing so. If we simply assumed that all the best books about evolution that might exist in L-space have already been written then the only people who are going to read about evolution are those already interested who take time to track down those titles. What's more, science is always changing, and what was true last year (even last week) is subject to change. Yesterday I received a copy of Horns, Tusks, and Flippers (2002) and even though the book is probably the most recent popular book on hoofed mammals whales are said to have evolved from mesonychids and an illustration of Pakicetus shows it in the outdated "hairless seal" mode. The discovery of ancient toothed whales with baleen during the past year (one of my most favorite scientific discoveries) has further altered our understanding of evolution, as well, and the need to keep updating information cannot be denied.
I have no idea whether I'm ever going to get my book published or not, but regardless of the outcome I want to create a synthesis that expresses how intricate and wonderful evolution is. Such a goal cannot be accomplished by clobbering the reader with facts and figures, and even though I can lay no claim to scientific expertise I think that I at least have the ability to put some flesh on what might otherwise seem like old scientific bones. I realize that this particular post has primarily been an exercise in navel-gazing (I probably should have been working on my book!), but articulating my thoughts on my own writing process helps me to keep track of where I'm going with this effort. I've yammered on for long enough, however; I've got some more work to do.
- Log in to post comments
I laughed out loud when I read this because I had exactly the same experience with my Monty Hall book. I decided I was going to procure every single book that contained a discussion of the problem, and then I was going to read the whole book, you know, to get the full context, as opposed to just reading the part specifically about the Monty Hall problem. Suffice it to say that became impractical in a hurry!
Good luck with the book.
Brian,
I'm currently designing a course aimed at undergraduates and community members on the evolution/creationism controversy, with an eye to the socio-political conflict. Like you, I've been flailing around, trying to find some unifying theme. I'm under a little more time pressure: The course will be taught this coming fall semester so I must get my ducks in the same room, if not lined up, very soon!
The trick is to figure out what story one wants to tell. What is the narrative theme that unites (or at least connects) the pieces? I'm settling into a theme that uses some major landmark events outside of science (or at least, outside of evolutionary biology) -- e.g., the Scopes trial, Sputnik, Edwards v. Aguilard -- to mark transitions in the tactics and foci of the conflict. So the course will not be organized around the science or the anti-science, but around some of the drivers of the socio-cultural conflict. That's the "story" the course will tell.
So what is the narrative theme of your book? What is the story you want to tell?
Jason; A real life lol! Awesome.
I hear you about trying to digest everything on a topic and never finding the time to do it, though. I still have books that I wish I had time to read from cover-to-cover but there just don't seem to be enough hours in the day.
RBH; That course sounds interesting. To me that "theme" of evolutionary science vs. modern creationism is something I sometimes refer to as the "Whale problem." In the book Trying Leviathan there is essentially a disjunct between a "learned man of letters" (calling a whale a mammal based on biology and not a fish) and the public (to which the whale is a fish because it looks like a fish and lives in the sea), the public feeling that they don't need a naturalist to tell them what their eyes can plainly see. I think the present controversy over creationism involves the same problem. In previous centuries natural theology actually helped set up our scientific understanding (studying nature to learn about God) and a bit of physics envy had biologists looking for "secondary laws" to explain the origin of species by the mid-19th century. Modern creationism, by contrast, seems to be steeped in the Christian fundamentalism of the early 20th century in which science is seen as somewhat superfluous. (i.e. "I don't need a scientist to tell me about my ancestors; the Bible tells me all I need to know.") While natural theology often required the study of nature to reveal the character of God modern creationism starts with dogma and seeks to bend nature to it, the Bible being THE authority for everything. In such a view you can't learn about nature by studying nature but instead have to try and bend nature to conform to a pre-chosen standard ("I know the Bible is true, so therefore anything that contradicts it must be false.")
Like I said, I think the root of our present struggle has to do with the overall attitude towards science and the value placed upon allegiance to super-conservative religious doctrine.
Anyway, as far as the story I want to tell, I want to illuminate evolution by picking quirks of history and nature, using both to illuminate each other. I want to talk about the "transmutation" of the evolution idea as well as a number of different groups of organisms (i.e. horses, whales, early tetrapods, dinosaurs, birds, saber-toothed mammals) using the history of discovery to put the history of life into context. To give you an example, I start off the human evolution chapter with Tyson's dissection of a chimpanzee ('pigmie') and how he tried to use the chimpanzee to close a gap in the great chain of being (making it intermediate between humans and other apes). Using that as a starting point I can talk about the history of discoveries of fossil humans during the 19th century (strangely enough some of the first were more recent and the discoveries got older as time went on) and how they each changed the face of human evolution (or in some cases did not).
It is difficult to articulate what THE main point exactly is, but I want to use changing ideas about evolution to introduce how evolution actually occurred. I don't want to focus only on the history or only on the organisms but rather use both to create a more synthetic narrative so that the reader will not only understand how evolution works but also how the scientific process works. That's what I hope, anyway.
Brian, I think you have a pearl beyond price here. I seldom see books that can explain both the science and the process or even make any real attempt to do so. And a book that's just celebrating evolution rather than fighting in the culture wars is sorely needed right now.
If publishers don't understand this, let me have their names and addresses so this simple fact can be explained.
As to the lengthy navel-gazing, gaze on! It's good for you and interesting for us.
We certainly need more books about evolution!
Reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins opened my eyes -again!- to all the interesting stories about organisms that I hadn't heard about them before. The Rotifer's Tale was one I read through three times right away.
Keep writing! Books like what you are working on keep me drawing and painting every spare minute.