Recent from talks
The Blind Watchmaker
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
The Blind Watchmaker
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (1986) is a popular science book by Richard Dawkins. It explains how the cumulative, nonrandom process of natural selection creates complexity. Dawkins develops themes from, and refutes criticisms of, his first book, The Selfish Gene (1976). It was illustrated by Liz Pyle.
It won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Current Interest and the Heinemann Award. An audiobook was released, read by Dawkins and Lalla Ward. A computer program of the same name was released and it was the basis for a BBC documentary of the same name. The Economist called it "As readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859."
The title refers to the watchmaker analogy made by William Paley in Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). Paley posited the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator. He argued by analogy with a watch compelling belief in the existence of a watchmaker. Charles Darwin, in On the Origin of Species (1859), argued that cumulative, nonrandom natural selection can create complexity. Dawkins dubs natural selection the blind watchmaker, "blind because it does not plan ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader."
In an appendix to the 1996 edition, Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused with group selection. He dubbed this insight the evolution of evolvability.
E. O. Wilson wrote "It is deep enough to be useful to biologists, yet sufficiently simple and well-written (very well-written in fact) to appeal to the same large audience that enjoyed The Selfish Gene." John Maynard Smith, in New Scientist, wrote "I was repeatedly astonished at the clarity with which Dawkins sees the problems. ... I wish I could write like that." Isaac Asimov called it "A lovely book, original and lively, it expounds the ins and outs of evolution with clarity." John Gribbin, in the Good Book Guide, wrote "This might just be the most important evolution book since Darwin".
Tim Radford, writing in The Guardian, noted that despite Dawkins's "combative secular humanism", he had written "a patient, often beautiful book... that begins in a generous mood and sustains its generosity to the end." 30 years on, people still read the book, Radford argues, because it is "one of the best books ever to address, patiently and persuasively, the question that has baffled bishops and disconcerted dissenters alike: how did nature achieve its astonishing complexity and variety?" He included it in his science writing canon: "How evolution works - by someone who knows how to make words work."
Philosopher and historian of biology Michael T. Ghiselin, writing in The New York Times, writes that Dawkins "succeeds admirably in showing how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design". He notes that analogies with computer programs have their limitations, but are still useful. Ghiselin observes that Dawkins is "not content with rebutting creationists" but goes on to press home his arguments against alternative theories to neo-Darwinism. He thinks the book fills the need to know more about evolution that creationists "would conceal from them." He concludes that "Readers who are not outraged will be delighted."
Kenneth R. Miller writes that Dawkins "brilliantly explains how complex mechanisms and structures are put together by the process of evolution" adding "It is true that he makes certain theological points that I don’t agree with."
Hub AI
The Blind Watchmaker AI simulator
(@The Blind Watchmaker_simulator)
The Blind Watchmaker
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (1986) is a popular science book by Richard Dawkins. It explains how the cumulative, nonrandom process of natural selection creates complexity. Dawkins develops themes from, and refutes criticisms of, his first book, The Selfish Gene (1976). It was illustrated by Liz Pyle.
It won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Current Interest and the Heinemann Award. An audiobook was released, read by Dawkins and Lalla Ward. A computer program of the same name was released and it was the basis for a BBC documentary of the same name. The Economist called it "As readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859."
The title refers to the watchmaker analogy made by William Paley in Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). Paley posited the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator. He argued by analogy with a watch compelling belief in the existence of a watchmaker. Charles Darwin, in On the Origin of Species (1859), argued that cumulative, nonrandom natural selection can create complexity. Dawkins dubs natural selection the blind watchmaker, "blind because it does not plan ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader."
In an appendix to the 1996 edition, Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused with group selection. He dubbed this insight the evolution of evolvability.
E. O. Wilson wrote "It is deep enough to be useful to biologists, yet sufficiently simple and well-written (very well-written in fact) to appeal to the same large audience that enjoyed The Selfish Gene." John Maynard Smith, in New Scientist, wrote "I was repeatedly astonished at the clarity with which Dawkins sees the problems. ... I wish I could write like that." Isaac Asimov called it "A lovely book, original and lively, it expounds the ins and outs of evolution with clarity." John Gribbin, in the Good Book Guide, wrote "This might just be the most important evolution book since Darwin".
Tim Radford, writing in The Guardian, noted that despite Dawkins's "combative secular humanism", he had written "a patient, often beautiful book... that begins in a generous mood and sustains its generosity to the end." 30 years on, people still read the book, Radford argues, because it is "one of the best books ever to address, patiently and persuasively, the question that has baffled bishops and disconcerted dissenters alike: how did nature achieve its astonishing complexity and variety?" He included it in his science writing canon: "How evolution works - by someone who knows how to make words work."
Philosopher and historian of biology Michael T. Ghiselin, writing in The New York Times, writes that Dawkins "succeeds admirably in showing how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design". He notes that analogies with computer programs have their limitations, but are still useful. Ghiselin observes that Dawkins is "not content with rebutting creationists" but goes on to press home his arguments against alternative theories to neo-Darwinism. He thinks the book fills the need to know more about evolution that creationists "would conceal from them." He concludes that "Readers who are not outraged will be delighted."
Kenneth R. Miller writes that Dawkins "brilliantly explains how complex mechanisms and structures are put together by the process of evolution" adding "It is true that he makes certain theological points that I don’t agree with."