|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 3 found the following review helpful:
A thoughtful commentary on contemporary clash of ideals Jun 20, 2007
Darwin's Dove is a thoughtfully written commentary examining how major worldviews interact and mesh together in today's volatile religious environment. Christianity, Islam, and secularism are all poked and prodded from different directions, allowing the reader to see which actions are taken in different situations in the name of faith. The core plot of the book, the development of a computer algorithm that can simulate evolution, allows the reader to understand how these different worldviews interpret the creation of the heavens and earth, and how they react when things don't go as expected.
As TJ and Rachel, the likeable protagonists, develop their controversial digital universe, they open up a Pandora's Box of concerns for everyone from atheists to the most religious. The atheists are annoyed because TJ's world uses a form of intelligent design to enhance and direct the evolution of his digital creatures. The Muslims think that TJ's creation of a universe is a form of blasphemy against God. And in between, there are moral concerns about whether this technology can and should be adopted for military use.
One good thing about Darwin's Dove is that it takes care not to come down too strongly in support of any one side. Passages about Islamic dialogue contain the reverent 'Peace Be Upon Him' following references of Muhammad, and the more aggressive passages from the Quran are tempered by more reasonable ones. Likewise with Christianity and the question about the military application of these creatures, care is taken not to offend those with sensibilities on either side. Perhaps the only group that is not looked upon considerately are the atheists - they are portrayed (I think accurately so) as an intellectually bankrupt mob. Without understanding the tenets of their own faith, they blindly attack those who oppose them in ideas. At least the Muslims considered the intellectual and moral ramifications of their attacks.
The story definitely reads well and is quite enjoyable. But if I had to fault the author on something, it would be on his eagerness to launch into lengthy theological exposition and on his comments on theological symbols. Perhaps the author had a theological education, but it takes this book from the realm of enjoyable fiction and elevates it to theological fiction. To a target audience of well-educated individuals, they suddenly find themselves struggling to follow all the theological arguments. The book does a fine job setting the religious tone, why not let the audience decipher for themselves what this all means? The rebuttals to concepts like Richard Dawkins' teapot in space are well thought out, but it unlikely that TJ could create such a well formed theological argument on the spot when prompted.
The book concludes very pleasantly. Few loose ends are left, and the reader is left with a story that discussed faith yet was not offensive, a rare trait in religious writing these days. You can take the book according to your own level. If you think that universal love will triumph in the end, you can interpret it as such. If you believe in the Christian ideal of a Kingdom of Heaven that is coming - let's say that the book leaves this opportunity open for a continuing guiding hand to make this possible.
1 of 2 found the following review helpful:
A fascinating tale of science and faith May 08, 2007
Juan Zanzeros has created a thought-provoking yarn combining elements of spirituality, religion and faith into a scientific storyline. TJ, a graduate student, uses computer simulation to create "evolution in a teacup", with surprising results and unintended consequences that place him and others he loves in peril. Atheists, governments, military forces, professors and the faithful all look for ways to use TJ and his study to gain advantage for their own selfish purposes.
There are obvious parallels between human historical evolution and the results of the simulator. How the author introduces competing religions into the simulator is a stroke of genius. The storyline seems simple at first glance, but reveals multiple layers of complexity with each passing event.
The author has obviously researched the material quite well. I found his insights into the different world religions are fascinating. Many of the scientific concepts in the book are already close to reality, and make the story very authentic.
The intriguing blend of science and faith in the story makes for a tale that stands out in a crowded field of fiction genres. A great read!
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
 A well-written, fast-paced, very enjoyable novel for the thoughtful person Apr 26, 2007
"Darwin's Dove" is a well-written, enjoyable adventure with two very likable protagonists, TJ and Rachel, who face mortal danger by over-using their advanced analytical intelligence while somewhat under-using their emotional and moral intelligence. They authored and fine-tuned a sophisticated computer program, TUSIM, which can simulate processes as complex as biological and social evolution.
TUSIM allowed virtual creatures called "Fleks" to evolve out of the primordial soup. In the course of the book, these creatures became nearly as complex as human beings, even forming religions, something (along with art and philosophy) Nietzsche thought truly separated man from beast, supposedly something that is in no way a product of evolutionary pressures to survive.
The simulation clearly showed that fundamental idea of Nietzsche's philosophy is not true. Like us, these Fleks have biologically inherited tendencies toward some selfish anti-social behaviors, which were once advantageous, but in later generations are seen as more destructive of self and society (p. 100-1). What happens under ever-changing selective pressures?
Rival governments would clearly be interested in the military applications of such a program, which could select, for example, for drones whose "intelligence" and other capabilities improve under the continually ramped-up selective pressures of simulated combat.
Rival religions would want to know which religions (if any) will survive the current struggles as a function of their creative inputs. Muslims would like to know whether "lesser jihad" (convert, subjugate, or kill infidels, p. 286) will eventually unite the world under Islam or unite the world against Islam. Is "greater jihad" (victory over the animal impulses featured in lesser jihad, pp.294-5) or a third alternative the "fitter" social evolutionary option for Muslims in a world where reliable information, clever marketing, novel ideas and military-industrial might (pp. 304-5) are now the primary weapons of choice?
How will rival religions survive and what will they become? TJ suggests that Christianity, for example, has survived to this point because almost no one follows its pacifism (p. 310). However, based on his computer simulations, he also suggests that the defiant deaths of the few pacifists serve the process by keeping the dream of peace alive during many violent generations (one immediately thinks of Gandhi's and MLK's pacifistic victories as keeping our dreams of world peace alive). Ironically, the non-pacifists also keep the dream of peace alive by fighting for survival and surviving their pacifistic brethren.
Of course, evolution is not purely selfish. It has inherent a weak altruism called "kin selection." If beings finally learn to live by the wider idea that "everyone is kin," the violence would stop. Thus, improbably, even the wisdom, "Love your enemies," which TJ thinks probably needed to be revealed to us (pp. 205, 310, 327), did not. Once minds are changed and former enemies are recognized as "kin," kin selection takes over. We can stop hating them and learn to love the former enemies "as ourselves." As TJ's original major professor realized (p. 231), the stronger the "external" selective pressure, the more broadly the term "kin" is applied "internally."
The book is replete with delicious ironies, many of which are very sad. My personal favorite is a happy irony (for a "happy nihilist"), the incredible irony of Rachel's feeling so much compassion for her computer-generated "Flek" creatures that she works tirelessly to satisfy her compulsion to ease or even end their "suffering" (pp.100-1). Ironically, if the "creator" of "our" universe had half so much compassion as this woman (who is supposed to be his much less compassionate creature) for the sufferings of us creatures with evolved nervous systems, to date this old world might have been at least a "barely tolerable" place for civilized beings to live.
Even if one argues materialistically that our pain is just a neurophysiological simulation, similar to a computer simulation, Rachel's compassion still appears to dwarf "god's" compassion. Indeed, believing Rachel's extreme empathy is actually subconsciously the author's or the author's wish that we be more empathetic, one would agree with Ellie Arroway that it is simpler to believe in the non-existence of a compassionate god ("Contact," Chapter 10) than to believe that a god whose compassion utterly dwarfs ours created us and this universe. A universe in which some of us feel that god abuses us, as "wanton boys" do "flies."
One would expect that all reasonably intelligent and compassionate observers in all reference frames would view such superhuman compassion as being at least "average human compassion." It is not so viewed by all. A cynic or satirist might suggest that it is simpler to believe our universe is a TUSIM experiment or more likely a failed and aborted physics experiment of a careless graduate student in another universe than the "best of all possible" creations of a compassionate, omnipotent, and omniscient god.
While the very survival of rival religions depends on their evolutionary fitness under ever evolving selective pressures, which they equally ironically think are static (as they fight the last jihad), the irony of modern Christian and Islamic fundamentalists' arguing against the empirical evidence for biological evolution and the empirical evidence against literal creationism is delicious. One wonders if they will still be fighting the ever-expanding evidence in the death throes of their own struggle for existence.
SPECULATIVE CONCLUSIONS:
Those who would like to see a "Chinese wall" erected between science and metascience, as TJ would, can skip the rest of the review, which is for those few who believe that at its best, imaginative metascience does not taint science, but rather subconsciously guides it and inspires it to probe further. In order to complete our picture of the world and establish a context for all of our thoughts, we have to speculate. Knowing we will probably fail, as have all others before us, keeps us humble in the noble attempt.
Most scientists would take the close modeling of complex human social phenomena and historical results with a human creation like TUSIM as computational evidence that evolution is mechanical, likely requiring no intelligence or no intelligent inputs greater than human at any step. Ironically, TJ does not. TJ rejects "the blind watchmaker" (p. 83-4, 91-2) and embraces "the god hypothesis" as the Supreme Mind who set up the whole process.
Except for a "divine revelation" about "selfless love" in an effort to stop the relentless killing in the Flek world, TJ admits that all of his other "intelligent inputs" into TUSIM were just to speed up processes that would have occurred spontaneously (p. 207). However, the "selfless love" revelation was also probably not necessary, as eventually the more altruistic beings in the population would realize "selfless love" is but a generalization of the definition of "kin" to "at least all other members of one's species" in evolution's inherent kin selection.
TJ misinterprets Dawkins. Dawkins does not say that science implies atheism. He rightly contends that theism violates one of science's philosophical pillars, Ockham's razor, in introducing an unnecessary hypothesis, an inexplicable and a very complex being, god, to "explain" the inexplicable evolutionary process, which proceeds from the simpler to the more complex.
One can dispute Dawkins' definition of god as an omniscient being at least as complex as the world (if not more complex) and his tacit assumption that Ockham applies in this metascientific case, but his reasoning is solid.
In addition, one of Darwin's biggest and most speculative (metascientific) ideas is that evolution is surprisingly general if not outright universal. Species, languages, religions, cultures, political systems, economic systems, and all other rival ideas (about which anyone cares) evolve under various selective pressures, of which degree of truth, when applicable, is only one, as human respect for truth in emotionally-charged issues is sadly lukewarm at best, and thus exerts little selective pressure on the generation or acceptance of such ideas.
If two rules predominate in this universe (Dawkins, "The God Delusion," Chapter 4), (1) everything evolves and (2) the more complex evolves from the simpler, then if by "god" one means an "omniscient being more complex than creation," god could not have been the creator of this "less complex" universe (Dawkins). Alternatively, god could be an important exception to either or both of the two rules (as theists and deists would argue).
In addition, if those two rules predominate in all universes, then everything in the "omnium" (the universal set, symbolized as a Capital Omega, including all universes in the multiverse, and all concepts of god) most likely evolved from "an ultimate simple," but not an "inert simple" (per Hegel).
What could this "ultimate simple" be? "Nothing" or "non-being," presumably the simplest "zero sum state," a "pure possibility" for the existence of the world. What then would the omnium be? A more complex "zero sum state." The mechanisms by which "non-being" gave rise to the present complex zero sum state are unknown, but importantly one need invoke no violations of conservation laws. In nihilism, all "complete" conservation laws are tautologies (thus universal and necessary, with no possibility of miracles), as the conserved quantity sums to zero and thus cannot change.
One cannot introduce any kind of "god hypothesis" into a nihilistic system without first showing how to zero this god. Thus, with this boundary condition, nihilism imposes some discipline lacking in over 3,800 unnormalized theistic concepts.
In such a zero sum world, Darwin's great idea, like all others, is just a tautology, derivable from the tautologies of physics and probability in a highly constrained zero sum universe. Darwin's tautology, in which "fitness" is short for "reproductive fitness," applied to everything that evolves, amounts to saying, "By definition, as selective pressures increase in a resource-limited world, culling of the less fit increases, and thus the frequency of the `grouped heritable characteristics' of the fitter increases." In other words, over time in sufficiently large populations, the probabilities of reproductive survival of grouped heritable characteristics approach observed frequencies.
To close with one final incredible irony. The term "nihilism" is used as a shorthand for the theory of "intrinsically complex happy nihilism." Confusing nihilism with annihilationism, people run away from balanced nihilism and embrace unbalanced, divisive, highly competitive, sometimes violent religious and political ideologies. Ironically, nihilism metaphysically grounds the egalitarianism that grounds the universal definition of "kin" as "at least all human beings," according to which we would respectfully and lovingly follow the golden rule and treat "others as ourselves." Universal peace would be a metastable result of all of this.
0 of 4 found the following review helpful:
A Synthesis of Faith and Reason Apr 15, 2007
Darwin's Dove is a love story about a graduate student and his girlfriend, who create a computer simulation of evolution that embroils them in a fight for their own survival. In the process they are brought face to face with philosophical questions that are thousands of years old and that still fuel the tension between atheists, Christians, and Muslims.
Since computer scientists are now capable of creating computer simulations of physical laws, self-replication, and evolving organisms, we have existence proofs, in principle, of subuniverses within our own universe. These virtual universes all have creators. So our best mathematical expectation is that our own universe is no different. We are trapped in a simulation. Evolution is a search algorithm, based on competition, that finds beautiful complexity only at the expense of suffering and war. Suffering is intrinsic to the search algorithm. A compassionate creator (or graduate student) might try to alleviate the suffering by revelation authenticated by prophecy and miracle. In Zanzeros' words "The evolutionary algorithm itself is the theodicy that Leibniz sought and Voltaire caricatured."
|
| | |
|
|
