The Blind Watchmaker: Too abstract or Too Awesome?

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

Okays, I've got one week of winter break left before going back to school and I decided to re-read TBW.

I'm 100 pages into it and though I'm really enjoying it, I wish the book had more concrete examples of how natural selection works. Dawkins of course does a great job with the Biomorphs and The Weasel program etc but I read "The Greatest Show on Earth" a few months ago and enjoyed it a lot more because it was grounded in actual data rather abstract computer models and analogies. I also recently finished "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean B. Carroll and have the same praise for that book, that it explains in fun detail the evidence for evolution while keeping the reader interested.

I think this is because TBW has a different goal than the other two books mentioned. I think that in TBW Dawkins sets out to change reader's perspective to a Darwinian one and what life looks like and how it operates in a Darwinian Universe. The result is utterly fascinating and positivity inspiring from my point of view. So though, TBW is kinda out there because it uses computer models and analogies to convey lessons to the reader, at the same time it's a utterly fascinating book, charged with a kind of insight that only someone like Dawkins can convey.

But what do you guys think?

(I'm majoring in evolutionary biology and am always reading stuff like this)

 

[Aught3]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your analysis. It seems to me that TBW presupposes you understand evolution and then takes it from there. I also recently read TBW and even though it's about 20yo it is still excellent. I especially enjoy punctuating punctuationism.

 

[obsidianavenger]

i like your screen name!

also it seems to me that the purpose of TBW was to explain how evolution works conceptually... to explain how you can get complexity without a creator so creationists would stop saying its impossible. while it didn't work on that score, it did do a pretty good job of explaining things on a conceptual level. greatest show on earth on the other hand, explains what we actually see, and how that leads us to believe that evolution actually occurs on our planet.

the way i see the *idea* of evolution completely butchered and misunderstood these days makes me think more people should read it

for example, the macro/micro "controversy" makes me want to KILL THINGS :evil:

 

[xman]

It seems to me that TBW presupposes you understand evolution and then takes it from there.

What's not to understand? I had it explained to me in school so long ago that I can't even remember when, but I do remember thinking, "Wow, of course, that's cool". Seriously, anybody who doesn't grasp such a simple idea must be either very imbecilic or else dedicated to a contradictory world view. I bet the vast majority of creationists even get it, all of it, and they just deny it.

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

It seems to me that TBW presupposes you understand evolution and then takes it from there.

What's not to understand? I had it explained to me in school so long ago that I can't even remember when, but I do remember thinking, "Wow, of course, that's cool". Seriously, anybody who doesn't grasp such a simple idea must be either very imbecilic or else dedicated to a contradictory world view. I bet the vast majority of creationists even get it, all of it, and they just deny it.

I disagree. I think that most people have a very vague understanding of what evolution is and it's this sort of fog that leads them to be fooled by things like "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design". While you're certainly that there are people like Michael Behe or Kurt Wise you do understand yet deny because of a religious agenda, I'm not sure this same criticism can be heaped on most people.

Look at Douglas Adams take on TBW for example...



"Douglas Adams -- The Book that Changed Me

from The Salmon of Doubt
copyright 2002
Completely Unexpected Productions Ltd.


1. Title: The Blind Watchmaker
2. Author: Richard Dawkins
3. When did you first read it? Whenever it was published. About 1990, I think.
4. Why did it strike you so much? It's like throwing open the doors and windows in a dark and stuffy room. You realize what a jumble of half-digested ideas we normally live with, particularly those of us with an arts education. We "sort of" understand evolution, though we secretly think there's probably a bit more to it than that. Some of us even think that there's some "sort of" god, which takes care of the bits that sound a little bit improbable. Dawkins brings a flood of light and fresh air, and shows us that there is a dazzling clarity to the structure of evolution that is breathtaking when we suddenly see it. And if we don't see it, then, quite literally, we don't know the first thing about who we are and where we come from.
5. Have you reread it? If so, how many times? Yes, once or twice. But I also dip into it a lot.
6. Does it feel the same as when you first read it? Yes. The workings of evolution run so contrary to our normal intuitive assumptions about the world that there's always a fresh shock of understanding.
7. Do you recommend it, or is it a private passion? I'd recommend it to anybody and everybody."

What do you think?

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

i like your screen name!

also it seems to me that the purpose of TBW was to explain how evolution works conceptually... to explain how you can get complexity without a creator so creationists would stop saying its impossible. while it didn't work on that score, it did do a pretty good job of explaining things on a conceptual level. greatest show on earth on the other hand, explains what we actually see, and how that leads us to believe that evolution actually occurs on our planet.

the way i see the *idea* of evolution completely butchered and misunderstood these days makes me think more people should read it

for example, the macro/micro "controversy" makes me want to KILL THINGS :evil:

Thank you for starters!

and yeah the "micro/macro thing"....is....so.....

 

[xman]

What do you think?

Well, I think you're probably correct especially if you want to argue the details. I mean, I certainly don't understand all the minute details as I'm not a biologist let alone an evolutionary biologist, but I never assumed there was a god running the uncomfortable bits, just that those were the bits I haven't yet learned of. It wouldn't be too out of character for me to be thinking of these things in ways I expect others to as well, but they don't because I'm an atypical artist (aren't we all). Big flaw of mine. Another fault I have is thinking I know what I'm talking about, but actually not, so that could be happening too. Evolution is natural selection of random mutation, right? I mean mostly, right? :lol:

 

[CkVega]

It was 'The Selfish Gene' that really illuminated the subject for me, once it was explained in terms of game theory, it all made sense. I read TBW after TSG and really enjoyed it, especially his explanation of cumulative selection (The 'Methinks it is like a weasel' thing).

 

[Squawk]

I disagree. I think that most people have a very vague understanding of what evolution is and it's this sort of fog that leads them to be fooled by things like "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design". While you're certainly that there are people like Michael Behe or Kurt Wise you do understand yet deny because of a religious agenda, I'm not sure this same criticism can be heaped on most people.

In complete agreement with you here.
I've recently started making my way through Dawkins books, opened up with the ancestors tale and then the selfish gene. Both presuppose at the very least a basic understanding of evolutionary theory in order to be read easily. I would suggest the average man on the street could read them and understand, but that it would take a fair bit of hard work and discipline to do so. I might be overestimating my own capacity to understand here of course, or underestimating that of the average man in the street.

I haven't read TBW yet so I can't comment on that specifically but reviews I've heard suggest it's along the same lines as the other Dawkins books in terms of pitch.

Your name intrigues me, I'm about 1/3 of the way through Darwins Dangerous Idea right now and I confess it's hard work, I can only manage a few pages at a time. To be honest it's main achievement thus far is to emphasise just how well Dawkins communicates the science of evolution, not sure I have learned anything from it yet.

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

In complete agreement with you here.
I've recently started making my way through Dawkins books, opened up with the ancestors tale and then the selfish gene. Both presuppose at the very least a basic understanding of evolutionary theory in order to be read easily. I would suggest the average man on the street could read them and understand, but that it would take a fair bit of hard work and discipline to do so. I might be overestimating my own capacity to understand here of course, or underestimating that of the average man in the street.

I haven't read TBW yet so I can't comment on that specifically but reviews I've heard suggest it's along the same lines as the other Dawkins books in terms of pitch.

Your name intrigues me, I'm about 1/3 of the way through Darwins Dangerous Idea right now and I confess it's hard work, I can only manage a few pages at a time. To be honest it's main achievement thus far is to emphasise just how well Dawkins communicates the science of evolution, not sure I have learned anything from it yet.

First of all, I ashamed of my grammar in last post!

I agree with your assessment of Dawkins' books, they not only describe various facts about evolutionary theory, but they also advocate a particular view of the natural world which is one of the reasons why Dawkins is so unique as writer. Glad to hear you're reading "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", it's one of my favorite books. Good mind candy too, lots to chew on and it took me a while to get through it. Such an awesome book ...

 

[Vikingbard]

Abstract comment:

Try "Why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne.

For anyone having trouble with any of the concepts, this easy to read and fascinating book is good for people of all education levels.

 

[Mapp]

I thought it was one of the best books on the subject I've ever read. It did, in all honesty take me a while to get through it, but every time I put it down, I felt that I had learned something.

 

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

I thought it was one of the best books on the subject I've ever read. It did, in all honesty take me a while to get through it, but every time I put it down, I felt that I had learned something.

I second that notion!