 |
|
Title: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
ISBN: 0393315703
Author:
Richard Dawkins
Publicate Date: 1996-09-19
Publish: 1996-09-19
List Price: $15.95
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $9.00
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $8.10
Amazon Merchant Price: $13.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: The Blind Watchmaker
Not an easy book to read, but well worth the effort. Understanding the evidence and arguments for evolution requires effort and thought, whereas believing in invisible and untestable gods is easy, which is why most people choose the latter. Dawkins explains clearly why evolution is the best, indeed the only rational explanation for life as it exists on Earth (other than the FSM, of course. Arrrr!)
|
2: A Good Introduction To and Defense of Evolution
This book is another fine effort by Richard Dawkins to explain how the complexity of life can be explained by evolution including natural selection. He uses his usual detailed, but laymen type of explanation to explore how various attributes of animals (and man) have come about.
The books closing chapters deal with some of the other theories that exist to try to explain the diversity of life. He does not take a highbrow approach. He explains the core beliefs and concepts of the theories and then using their own words, shows how they can not explain it as well as the theory of evolution can.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a good discussion of evolution. You will not find an atheist arguing here. You will find a scientist who knows his field and wants you to understand it as well.
|
3: The Argument For Design
It is not a stretch of the imagination to claim that scientific evidence
supports the idea of a design in Nature. The real argument is not over
the presence of design but over the source of the design. Is it the random, ignorant, process of mutation and natural selection esposed by
Dawkin`s or the work of an Intelligent Designer.After a full assessment
of Dawkin`s book, I opt for the latter.I find it remarkable how often
the creativity we find in nature is so similar to human design-albeit,
Nature`s are usually more exquisite , optimal, or efficient.
|
4: What a profound confidence in "Materialism" the author has!
The book has been given so many praises from so many prestigious persons & media; hence may be a good book to read. But from my point of view, the author is as completely hypnotized by "Materialism" as the so-called creationists are so hypnotized by "God" the Father. I wonder why scientists do not try to put every life on a horizontal line instead of putting Mankind on the top of a tree! It is very dangerous for intelligent Mankind to fall from the top
Great Britain is a very interesting country in the point that she is the mother country of both Darwinism and the Society for Psychical Research. We lost Prof. Ian Stevenson last year (in 2007), who was the president of the SPR for 1989. Obvious truth is that: (1) if Prof. Stevenson's compiled data plus the official document of a Japanese boy "Katsugoro (in 1810)" of "reincarnation" is true, then all theories based on materialism surely fail, (2) if only a fraction of those compiled files include the truth, then the same will be concluded, (3) if "the missing 21 grams" of Dr. Duncan MacDougall (in 1907) cannot be refuted scientifically, then the same will be concluded.
That is, all our current scientific theories are sitting on the top of several big bombs, which might shatter all these materialistic ideas.
|
5: Even IF blind
.....A watchmaker is still a watchmaker, and is presumably still making a watch that works. But whenever we don't understand something in our world, we say that there is no God. We profess to be intelligent beings but we think we know all there is to know, particularly as it concerns God. Sorry, folks, we don't know everything. And when we don't, just say so, don't say there is no God when you really do not know one way or the other. Every time we wonder "why", we say oh God would not do it that way. We would do it this way. We constantly substitute our judgments and viewpoints re what we think God should do. We are not God. So Mr Dawkins is in a field in which he knows absolutely nothing (re the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being. Neither Dawkins nor anyone else is ever in a position to definitively state that there is no God. But we say it anyway, in our ignorance. Oh well :)
|
|
|
|
|
