The Blind Watchmaker [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

I am frustrated by the arguments in other reviews here that it requires "faith" to rely on natural selection as an explanation for the development of life and ultimately consciousness. This sort of comment belittles scientific thought and tries to collapse it into the same sphere as religious thought.

Dawkins himself has had much to say on the question of whether science is "just another religion," and this "faith" business is just a way of rephrasing the accusation. It muddles Dawkins' point, which is this: if we can reasonably explain the origins of life given the laws we know to exist, such an explanation, even if impossible to definitively prove, is preferable to an explanation that relies on the supernatural, because the latter is (in Dawkin's words) simply rephrasing the problem. I think this is an excellent distinction; to say that, for instance, evolution and Special Creation both require "faith" because neither is 100% proved, is dangerous sophistry of the worst kind. Though neither is absolutely proved, one is a reasonable supposition, and the other is not.

Dawkins' point is to render God tautological -- at least with regard to biological questions (he bows out of cosmological discussions, claiming that is not his area of expertise). Whether Dawkins succeeds completely in his aim in "The Blind Watchmaker" can be debated -- I think he skirts a bit too quickly around some of the questions of probability, particularly the issue of whether, even allowing for accumulation of small change, the frequency of beneficial genetic mutations is sufficient to give natural selection the raw stuff it needs to work with.

"Blind Watchmaker" is a good introduction, both to the theory of evolution in general, and to Dawkins' refreshingly unapologetic, strident manner of writing. But much more reading must be done by anyone who wants to grasp all the issues encompassed by evolution.

Next to The Selfish Gene, this is probably Dawkins' most impressive and worthwhile book. Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection remains under fire from those determined to find a ghost responsible for human beings and the rest of life. Dawkins answers the obstructionists with clear logic and good science. He directly addresses the big compound question of who we are and whence we came. It's a daunting task, not only because of the tenacity of resistance to the answer. Dawkins asks readers to open their minds to envision vast stretches of time and conceive of the collection of minute changes that must have occurred to arrive here from such remote beginnings. His writing ability gently leads readers along the many steps necessary to come to an understanding of how life works.

His choice of Paley's 1802 publication "Natural Theology" to outline the roots of obstructionist attitudes is excellent. Although he wasn't challenging Darwin [who wasn't born yet!], Paley's logic and arguments are still used by those who resist being toppled from their divine pedestal. Dawkins begins his presentation by explaining "the watchmaker" is nature's blind forces of physics acting in an environment that could give rise to life. He spends time addressing the issue of complexity, its meaning and its application to the forces of life in contrast to inert matter such as rock.

Dawkins follows this analysis with examples of "design" [or lack of it] in nature compared with design by humans. From bats through bears to Boeings, Dawkins lucidly explains the differences between nature's "decisions" and those of engineers. Evolution, no matter how illogical it seems to the human witness, doesn't foresee the result of changes. Our brief existence demands answers within our lifetimes. Dawkins posits that we need patience, that nature works too slowly [with some exceptions - see Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch for an update] to provide quick, simple answers to how life works.

His chapter Accumulating Small Change addresses the issue of change in a novel fashion. It also counters the frequently raised challenge that "statistically, life can't evolve through random change". Here, Dawkins introduces a computer program which takes us through the evolutionary process in accelerated steps. He shows that while life is constantly changing, these changes occur within certain constraints. "Randomness" is hemmed in by such limits as weather, antecedents and valid physical structure. Giant pterodactyls and miniature bats appear vastly different to us, but their fundamental structures are nearly identical. Evolution, then, relies on tiny steps of cumulative selection. Little changes tested in life's cauldron. The survivors ultimately become polar bears, flatworms, kangaroos, us.

After a wonderful chapter, "Puncturing punctuationism" demolishing Stephen Gould's iconoclastic attempt to erode Darwin's thesis, Dawkins moves on to examine other, competitive ideas of how evolution operates. Since many of the ideas discussed in "Doomed Rivals" have been utilized by the obstructionists attempting to counter Darwin, this conclusion is one of the most valuable sections of the book. Starting with the premise that no-one conscious of life can deny evolution, he goes on to examine how various thinkers have addressed its mechanism. Lamarck, who understood life changed through time, still inspires adherents. It's an easier system to understand than Darwin's natural selection. Its premise of acquired characteristics remains wrong, however, no matter what new versions of the idea are forwarded. Dawkins carefully examines the ancient and modern proposals on acquired characteristics, respectfully disposing of them as good common sense, but bad science.

This book is vital to those wishing to develop a feeling for understanding our place in the universe. Our society is so imbued with the concept of divine origins that we've found it too easy to override the life around us. Dawkins book realigns humanity with the rest of life on this planet. If we read and understand him, perhaps we'll regain the respect for our surroundings we lost when we first conceived of gods. If we aren't the result of a spirit's whim, then perhaps we can address the future more realistically. Read this book and see for yourself. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

It's pretty obvious that a fair few people criticising this book have not read it - and have no intention to. Or if they have attempted to read it they simply haven't grasped the most basic concepts. General assumptions that a pro-evolution stance is just an "opinion", or that evolution is "just a theory" (a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the word in a scientific context), or statements like "given enough time, dirt can turn into people." show that clearly. One person even takes one of the central aims of the book - where Dawkins takes Paley's watchmaker analogy and attempts to show how a complex object like an eye could evolve by selection - and berates Dawkins because because he apparently doesn't grasp the fact that because a watch or computer has a designer, that life must have a designer as well! Awe-inspiring. If I remember he also accuses Dawkins of circular reasoning!

The whole case of the book is that this "it's all chance" thing is precisely the opposite of what Darwin and Wallace said. As Dawkins writes in the prologue "The trouble with evolution is that everyone *thinks* they understand it". If one thing should be taken from this book, it is the realisation that Natural Selection is *anything* but chance.

I used to think I understood evolution. I did Biology as an elective at university but I didn't really begin to understand the subtleties and elegance of the theory until I first read this book 10 years ago. It's genuinely one of the milestone books of my life - and not because I already had an opinion before I read it - unlike the creationists.

To paraphrase Dawkins in this book: If I don't understand Quantum Mechanics or Relativity the last thing I should reasonably expect to be able to do is get away with criticising it as though my opinion had as much weight as that of a person who spent a professional lifetime studying it. Yet, alone amongst the sciences, the theory of evolution is considered fair game for criticism by people of any level of ignorance.

In the middle ages at least people had an excuse for such ignorance. In this age of high technology and scientific breakthoughs, the ingrained, bigoted and ill-thought out repostes to evolution can only be described as willful ignorance. And that's the worst kind.