Rating: 
Summary: No empircal evidence
Review: Just as all evolutionsists do, Dawkins revels in postulation, wild imagination and grand hypothoses. Why cant he just point us where all the "evidence" is to be found so we can all go and see it? I think you are the wicked and insane one Mr Dawkins!
Rating: 
Summary: Poetical science
Review: Richard Dawkins lifts the attraction of science by quoting the very personal expressions of well-known poets about the beauty of nature.
But besides these poetic outburst, his work contains deeper digging essays.
On the evolutionary front, he characterizes magisterially the core propositions in the theory of the late S.J. Gould. He gives new explanations on the selfishness of the genes, while showing that co-evolution, co-adaptation and altruism are only useful servants in the spreading of those genes. He also tries to explain the dimensional explosion of the human brain.
On the negative front, he castigates Gaia as nonsense and torpedoes in a few paragraphs the work of Margaret Mead.
Richard Dawkins is also a brilliant master in the unmasking of paragnostic or religious (Fatima) tricks.
He mocks the overboiling feminist frustrations, where one ultra sees Newton's 'Principia' as a 'Manual for Rape' (really!).
But he becomes profoundly desperate when he encounters barbaric scientific ignorance in the British Establishment, where this 'gift' is even considered as funny.
This very rich book contains still more interesting items (like the use of DNA analysis in trials). It is, like all Richard Dawkins' works, thought-provoking and a must read.
Rating: 
Summary: Another splendid work for his followers
Review: Richard Dawkins is a gifted writer, and has a wonderful sense of creative writing designed to appeal to those who follow his religion. On this I applaud his efforts, and admire his consistent ability to restate the same theme in different contexts. Truly, he is skilled and adept at leading his followers where they want to go.The only problem with his most current book, is that it contains the same flaws as his other works: namely, Richard is so preoccupied with trying to conince himself and his followers of his own theories of philosophy that nearly all his work is designed to suit his base assumptions, and he never is really open to any other ideas except to refute them. There are those who find his prose exceptional, his passion encouraging and his views comforting, but therein lies the problem. Richard Dawkins is wrong. No, his writing is not intentionally false, but rather he has simply made a career of piling more and more weight on a cracked and flawed foundation. To anyone who has ever experienced meaning beyond instincts, his base philosophy of pure naturalism is exposed for what it is: a fantasy which requires more faith to believe than the spirituality he tries so hard to prove doesn't exist. I liken his work to that of the moral relativist who states boldly: "there are no absolute truths". Well, except for the simpleton whose worldview requires everyday justification, the self refuting nature of the statement is obvious. If there are no absolute truths, then the statement itself must not be an absolute truth and therefore is false. If however, there are absolute truths then the statement is also false. Either way, it is self refuting and false. The same can be said for the base philosophy of Richard Dawkins. If you really want to believe (note it requires the word "believe") that all of life is merely the result natural and deterministic causes, then you are a follower of Dawkins and will love this book. In fact, I highly recommend it. If however, you believe that there is more to life than the firing of synapses and the evolution of physical beings, then you will find his work, including this book, to be just the pathetically desparate rant of someone who wants more than anything to be right, yet is afraid deep down that they are not. Your call.
| 
