Rating: 
Summary: A Universe Without Design
Review: The debate as to whether or not the world as we know it has some omnipresent, omniscient creator, unfortunately, continues to this day. There are still those who refuse to yield to science, logic, and observable fact, and feel as though science and religion must be mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins points out that this is not the case. Whether or not there is an ultimate creator is left up to the reader, yet at the same time it should be noted that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. Furthermore, it occurs without a predestined design. Evolution by natural selection is no longer regarded as theory by most in the field. It has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. The "Blind Watchmaker" of this book refers to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. For, the watch is an intricate piece of machinery that surely requires a watchmaker to piece together all it's inner workings. The analogy has been made (specifically in Rev. William Paley's "Natural Theology") that the universe as we know it can be seen as an intricate working similar to that of a watch, and thus the universe must also have a maker of it's own. Dawkins points out that if one chooses to go along with this analogy, then evolution by natural selection would be the watchmaker, and this maker is indeed blind. Blind in the sense that evolution has no direction, no goals, and no predetermined stopping point. Dawkins uses extremely convincing analogies such as the intricacies of the eye, the sonar used by bats, and even several computer simulations, using programs he wrote, to support his arguments. Small changes, mutations, give rise to phenotypic traits that are advantageous to a particular species, or a subset of a species, and thus this mutation persists. Over geologic time, then, a few small photoreceptor cells may eventually become the eyes we know of today. As a biology major, this book was a must-read. However, one thing I really loved about this book is that you don't have to be a biology major to understand and appreciate the points Dawkins makes. He draws the reader through his analogies and explanations using simple layman's terms, and everyday examples that are easily understood. My only complaint is that some of his examples can be rather long-winded, redundant, and circuitous. Indeed, Dawkins can be rather verbose at times. Nonetheless, I feel that this is a must-read book for anyone who is either still on the fence with regards to creationist theory, or anyone who wants to open their eyes to some easily digestible science. Overall this was a very well written argument for a universe without design, and this theory, if not this book, should not be overlooked.
Rating: 
Summary: Reviewers who don't read the books under review
Review: The reviewer on 25 December 2004 is being deeply disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, as anyone who's read even the first few chapters of Dawkins' book will know that he devotes a great deal of time to answering every single one of these points, and backing up his detailed arguments with considerable evidence. For instance, he devotes the better part of an entire chapter to the question of the evolution of the eye, citing numerous examples of still-extant species who rely on far more primitive (i.e. less 'evolved') light-sensitive devices to back up his assertions.
Rather more pertinently, one of the first things that Dawkins discusses - again, in considerable depth - is this whole question of chance and probability, specifically the fact that evolution is categorically NOT a product of random occurrences and statistically unfeasible coincidences. And the reason why he devotes so much space to this is because he knows that people who fail to grasp this point won't be able to understand Darwin's theories at all.
So there are three possible explanations for our anonymous friend to have written the review that he did. The first is offensive: he has read the book, but he's too stupid to understand or even remember its main points. The second is sinister: he has read the book, but wishes to dissuade others from reading it because the arguments are dangerously persuasive, so he makes it sound as though Dawkins ignores these issues when the exact opposite is true. The third is the easiest to grasp, and therefore probably correct: he hasn't read the book at all.
Read it yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I'VE EVER READ...
Review: The title above is not used carelessly.
This book was a revelation in the way I understand the world and reasons for the existence of life itself.
First, however - you'll notice that 90% of reviews for this book are either 5 full stars or a dismal one. Reading the one star reviews, you'll find few of them discuss the actual book, and the fact that some raise questions that were swiftly dealt with by Dawkins in his first chapter suggests many have not in fact even READ it!
Dawkins approach cleverly avoids getting into hair splitting theological questions, and rather than explicitly arguing *against* a divine creator (again - did some of the reviewers here read the book, or are they simply attacking Dawkins well known beliefs?), he simply shows that the observed chemical, physical and mathematical properties of the universe CAN provide an explanation of the life we observe without HAVING to resort to religious explanations. Consequently, Occam's razor raises the obvious question : if a 'simpler' and more complete explanation for life can be given that the religious one, should we not conclude it is probably the right one, or at the very least a 'more' correct one?
Dawkins book gives us this 'other' explanation, and gives it in such detail and so patiently you can almost picture him anticipating every single 'yes, but' that theists might try to hurl at him. By applying the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics and understanding thermodynamic, anthropic and other principles, Dawkins shows how complex systems (such as life) can evolve from simple, disordered states. The essential argument of the book is not that there is not a 'creator', but simply that humans are no more special achievement of the forces of creation than any other replicating devices, from the simplest bacteria to large eco-systems. And we share the same fate.
Read this book : if you can approach it with an open mind, understand it, and walk away happilly disagreeing with Dawkins, then you will have done so much more than many reviewers on this site (hardcore atheists included). Disagree by all means, but, damn you, THINK!
Rating:
Summary: A non-teleological evolution classic
Review: This is one of the books I have enjoy the most. I won't say it blows down all and everyone of the arguments creationists had ever construct, but it gives you the logical background to judge between sides (evolutionists vs. creationists). I just love to read a coherent, clear and remarkably well written book about evolution and its historic differences with religion. I really don't recommend this book to anyone intending to approach it with prejudices. It is always deeply disturbing to read reviews attacking a book like this with arguments so inconsistent with the ones found in the book. This means that the reader didn't understand the text, or maybe he read it with the only intention of criticize it later, or worst of all, did not read it, but anyway criticize it.
So this book is a great read anytime and anywhere, besides, you don't need much background in evolution to understand it and enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: An informative and revealing explanation of Darwinism
Review: This is the first science book I've read about evolution, and I think it was a good place to start. In this book, Dawkins does a good job at explaining the concepts of natural selection and "random" mutation. I was pretty familiar with the common sense idea of natural selection, but I definitely benifited from the explanation of what random mutation really is. His writing style and passion kept me interested throughout the book. He does an okay job at dismissing other theories of our existence, but I really wish he would have spent more time on it (It only occupies the latter part of one chapter). For those who are confused about the odds of evolution happening, this is also a good resource. Although his argument requires some imagination and speculation, it helps the reader think about how big the numbers involved really are, compared to our puny lifespans (and the amount of time humans have existed). He stresses objectivity, dismisses personal incredulity (which so many of us use in our arguments), and openly admits that should someone show him an organ too complex to have developed through evolution, he would indeed give the theory up. To me this shows that Dawkins is interested solely in the truth, and not defending his reputation and beliefs, unlike all the fundamentalists. This is a good book for anyone who is, like Dawkins, interested in the truth, and exploring and explaining our universe in ways that make sense, and is not afraid to shed previous beliefs. Dawkins' argument is at times so convincing that I wonder why there is any controversy at all.
|
