[.ca] Blind Watchmaker (ISBN 0393315703)

From Amazon.com:
Richard Dawkins is not a shy man. Edward Larson's research shows that most scientists today are not formally religious, but Dawkins is an in-your-face atheist in the witty British style: I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. The title of this 1986 work, Dawkins's second book, refers to the Rev. William Paley's 1802 work, Natural Theology, which argued that just as finding a watch would lead you to conclude that a watchmaker must exist, the complexity of living organisms proves that a Creator exists. Not so, says Dawkins: "All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way... it is the blind watchmaker." Dawkins is a hard-core scientist: he doesn't just tell you what is so, he shows you how to find out for yourself. For this book, he wrote Biomorph, one of the first artificial life programs. You can check Dawkins's results on your own Mac or PC.

A non-teleological evolution classic:
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.

very good book (with patience):
I've wanted to read this book for years because I find the intricacies and nuances of evolution fascinating, and I've always admired Richard Dawkins as well. A few chapters were captivating, including discussions about how bats use sonar to "see", and the amazing complexity of the eye. Dawkins makes excellent arguments about how and why mechanisms so amazingly improbable could evolve over millions of years. I admire the incedible depth of his intellect and lets face it, to truly understand evolution one must really think deeply about it. It's not all black and white and I admit that sometimes evolution itself is not something that is always easy to accept. But I believe it. It's makes so much sense to me when I learn about it. Yes, there are unanswered questions that can't be easily answered in a high school biology lab, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be abandoned. Dawkins does tend to ramble and go off on tangents in too many places to the point where I lost what he was trying to get at. Although I lean heavily on the side of not believing in intelligent design, after finishing the book I didn't feel as a whole he made a clear and concise argument that the watchmaker is indeed blind because of the somewhat disorganized writing. But I still recommend this book for people interested in the subject because there are enough gems in here to make it worth the effort.

Useful:
Good for refuting creationist (including "intelligent design") nonsense. Over the years, though, I've become convinced that Dawkins' worldview is in many ways a mirror image of the fundamentalism he so rightly detests. The "selfish gene" ideology amounts to little more than theology for atheists.

The Random Bookwriter::
I have heard that educated people believe that a monkey typing randomly could write the Encyclopedia Brittanica, given enough time. I want to briefly comment on Dawkins' reliance on genetic algorithms' ability to randomly generate intelligent results that only *appear* to have design -- given enough iterations -- as evidence that random processes created the first living cell. What is missing in his reasoning is the crucial part of the algorithm's loop: the feedback test. That is, the determination at each iteration as to whether a current mutation is closer or farther, from the desired optimal result. This, of course requires a comparison with the desired (fully developed) output. The Programer designs the genetic algorithm, and of course, the Programmer designs the goal of that algorithm. The fact that the designer does not care how the result is attained does not remove the fact that he defines what the result should do. "The fountain does not rise above its source" I recommend this book because it is an excellent example of how a researcher often can only assemble evidence, filtered by his preconcieved notions, in accordance with his desired result.

A Universe Without Design:
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.