Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Don't let the accolades on the cover fool you. Though penned by an Oxford professor who presumably should have written a scholarly and compelling treatment of the subject matter, in reality the book is little more than an elaborate yet desperate attempt by Dawkins to prove that God does not exist. Written in a tone that borders on what I would call smug dogmatism, Dawkins' treatment of evolution contains *numerous* instances of unproven assertions and logical contradictions. Were some of his statements not so flawed, they could almost be funny. In fact, if one were to give his mistakes a name, "Legion" would be rather suitable, for "we are many." While it would be easy to offer a systematic rebuttal of his entire book, space limitations prevent it. Permit me, then, to offer you at least a few examples of the problems that abound in Dawkins' book. Addendum: First and foremost, the insurmountable obstacle for Dawkins is the fact that, according to Dr. Lee Spetner in _Not By Chance_, every observed instance of mutation has resulted in a LOSS of genetic information. (The best-case scenario is that in some isolated instances a re-shuffling of code that is already present occurs, meaning that nothing new has been added). This means that organisms are gradually becoming more complex by losing information each step of the way! (This is analogous to the salesman who lost a little money on each transaction, but he figured he'd make up for it in volume.) This absurdity should be painfully obvious even to people with only a rudimentary knowledge of science, but this is what Dawkins would have us believe. Strangely, this fact about genetic loss is conspicuously not addressed in any way by Dawkins. In the Introduction Dawkins claims that Darwinism "provides the only satisfying explanation for why we all exist, why we are the way we are" (p. x). In the Preface he boldly asserts that he wants "...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" (p. xiv, emphasis his). These are clearly ontological considerations, and Dawkins has bitten off way more than he can chew. In dealing with such sublime subject matter he completely ignores some central considerations, and he promises a more comprehensive understanding of our existence than he actually delivers. To cite three simple but critical omissions, Dawkins completely neglects to explain (1) the purpose for our existence, (2) how the raw materials for evolution got here in the first place, and (3) *why* "we want to know how they [complicated things] came into existence and why they are so complicated" (p. 1)--that is, why we search for meaning and seek understanding. If you're promising to "solve the mystery of our existence," then deliver. Dawkins not only fails to do that, but he routinely neglects dealing with relevant issues. Here's one example of his rather inadequate treatment of such concerns: "How, then, did they [complex living things] come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance" (p. 43). Dawkins obviously did not witness these alleged transformations himself, so is he just assuming they occurred? How does he *know* the beginnings were "simple"? Does he have actual physical proof or mere speculation? What exactly are these "entities"? Where did they come from? Did they spontaneously generate themselves into being? To this reader, centering an entire world view and life philosophy (as Dawkins does) around a single, unsubstantiated claim is not only UNscientific, it could not possibly be a more absurd and irrational thing to do. Take note how often Dawkins asserts that a particular environment, adaptation, organism characteristic, etc. just "happens" to be the way it is. Of course this begs the very question that is supposedly being answered in his book: "How did it get that way?" Why, evolution *made* it that way, Dawkins will insist! Of course merely declaring what you are obligated to substantiate with tangible proof does not even remotely qualify as a scholarly or legitimate treatment of the subject. Yet Dawkins is guilty of this offense quite frequently, giving the reader little more than his own presuppositions of how *he* imagines evolution worked in a given instance--with little or no actual support for his claims. Those reviewers who assert that Dawkins' book is "brilliantly supported" and the like are clearly mistaking his fanciful descriptions and imaginings for actual proof. Dawkins does offer plenty of his own assertions about how he thinks evolution supposedly worked in various environments, but let the reader note that in virtually every instance Dawkins utterly fails to provide any physical evidence to support them. Dawkins does little more than cite himself as proof for all his claims, and he apparently cannot see what a hindrance his own egocentrism is. Dawkins notes that "The fundamental original units we need to postulate, in order to understand the coming into existence of everything, either consist of literally nothing (according to some physicists), or (according to other physicists) they are units of utmost simplicity, far too simple to need anything so grand as deliberate Creation" (p. 14). Dawkins favors the latter view, and he vigorously promotes it throughout his book. But this approach illustrates one of the most fundamental flaws of his entire line of reasoning. He asserts that if we merely assume a simple enough biological "unit" and a sufficiently long timespan, then we can literally account for the origin of anything. This claim apparently means that if we just keep going further back in time and getting less complex we can solve the meaning of our existence. (Of course an unproven assumption is cleverly built into Dawkins' claim, namely that the more ancient an organism is, de facto the more simple it is.) Dawkins apparently expects you to simply take his word for it on this issue, since (again) all he offers is his own say-so rather than hard evidence. Notice also that his entire line of reasoning rests upon three premises we apparently are to just assume are valid, namely (1) the existence of unnamed, unidentified "primordial entities," (2) that they were "sufficiently simple," and (3) that they ostensibly generated themselves into being. I suspect that if someone were to insist that God is the source of the world's complexity and offered nothing more than his own assumptions as proof--and expected you to believe them--Dawkins would probably be intellectually outraged. How enormously hypocritical. In chapter 3 Dawkins illustrates the process of "accumulating small change" by using the analogy of a monkey "bashing away at random" on a computer keyboard and ultimately coming up with the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" (from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_). Beginning with 28 characters of gibberish, the monkey succeeds in arriving at the "target" sentence in 43 "generations" (separate bashings) on the keyboard, each one moving the monkey closer to the goal. The problems with Dawkins' ridiculous example here are: (1) the target destination is already known, which presupposes a designer or "watchmaker"; (2) the monkey's keyboard bashings are small but definite steps in a *pre-determined* direction; and (3) given enough "generations," the experimenter will ALWAYS arrive at the target sentence. Amazingly, though, Dawkins later states, "In real life evolution there is nothing that corresponds to steering towards some distant genetic target" (p. 71). But this "steering" is precisely what his monkey analogy demonstrates, so how is it an accurate or useful illustration of evolution? Why did Dawkins provide an analogy that not only proves the exact opposite point he was attempting to make, but also contains rather obvious flaws in terms of it accurately portraying the evolutionary mechanism? In chapter 4 Dawkins deals with the alleged evolution of the human eye, and his tone suggests he might view this particular segment of his book with some pride. However, his crowning example proves to be nothing more than a sample of his most flawed reasoning. Dawkins argues that 5% vision is better than no vision at all, 6% vision is better than 5%, and so on, and that any organism with bare minimum sight fared better than organisms with none. No objection. But what Dawkins actually succeeds in doing here is far more subtle and far more defective. Notice his shift in language from 5% of an EYE to 5% VISION (naively suggesting that 1% of the eye parts equals 1% of functional eyesight)--and his colossal mistaken assumption that having only 5% of the parts necessary for a working eye could produce an eye that sees at all, however poorly it may be! This is utterly ridiculous, to say the least. A little research on the structure of the eye will demonstrate that you would need a far greater percentage of eye parts to achieve even Dawkins' meager 5% vision, and this fact raises an insurmountable obstacle for him: How can we obtain the degree of complexity needed even for really bad eyesight? His 5%-of-an-eye organism would most assuredly still be completely blind, making it not even one iota closer to being better adapted for survival. Compounding his blunders, Dawkins later in the chapter says, "The claim that 'The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all' turns out to be, not merely false but self-evidently false to anybody who thinks for 2 seconds about his own familiar experience" (p. 84). I was astounded that a man of his presumed intelligence would make such a patently erroneous statement. He cavalierly discards the irreducible complexity of the eye in exchange for an eye that has only 5% of the necessary working parts--and thus does not function at all--and he is the one who points the finger of self-evident falsehood at others? You've got to marvel at the sheer delusion. My "2-second reflection," coupled with some actual research on eye structure, confirmed that the eye actually *does* work as a whole or not at all. Imagine, for instance, having only 5% of the necessary working parts for your car's engine and expecting it to function in ANY way whatsoever! Imagine further someone condescending to say to you, "If you think about the complexity of your car's engine for 2 seconds, you should realize that if you have only 5% of all the working parts you still have a transportation advantage over someone with no engine parts." What use is only 5% of the working parts? Such an engine would clearly not function at all, and therefore it would give a person no better chance whatsoever of being transported anywhere. The same is true for an organism with only 5% of working eye parts. It would have ZERO selective value for an organism and consequently have no effect whatsoever on the organism's survival. Dawkins *completely* misses the mark here, and this is a great example of how he embodies what was said best in the movie _American Beauty_: "Never underestimate the power of denial." It's very bizarre to note how many times Dawkins makes comparisons to human-made machinery and objects, explaining the many small steps and intricate parts necessary to arrive at their mechanical complexity. Then in the next breath he will assert that evolution functions in much the same way--provided, of course, that we *assume* a sufficiently long amount of time and nearly endless steps in the process--even though it is the "blind watchmaker" with no purpose or goal in mind! How could Dawkins be so clueless as to fail to realize his comparisons undercut his own logic? Clearly the existence of complex machines presupposes an intelligent, purposeful designer behind them, and yet this analogy is what Dawkins uses to illustrate a biological dynamic *without* purposeful design. Go figure. If you want a rather lengthy and elaborate lesson in (1) denial of reality, (2) self-aggrandizing thinking, (3) obvious examples of logical flaws, and (4) the art of creating elaborate self-deception, then Dawkins' book is a must-read. If you want a person's staunch refusal to acknowledge how inadequate and unproven the theory of macro evolution actually is, then buy this book at once. On the other hand, if you want a serious, intelligent, and compelling treatment of the origins of life and an attending search for its meaning--along with actual evidence for its claims--your time and money would be better spent elsewhere. In my estimation, the not-so-hidden agenda behind Dawkins' book is a systematic attempt to deny the existence of God. Dawkins apparently believes that if he throws up a sufficiently large and convoluted smoke-screen that has the appearance of science, people will be convinced of what he has to say. However--as Dawkins successfully demonstrates--eloquence need not be grounded in truth or reality. Judging from other reviews of his book, people have sadly fallen prey to this trap. Where matters of theology, philosophy, epistemology and the like are concerned, Dawkins should stay out of intellectual waters that are clearly over his head. Addendum: I highly recommend Lee Spetner's book, _Not By Chance_. It is a scientific, statistical, and intelligent treatment of the actual mechanisms behind evolution, and Spetner proves that evolution as described by Neo-Darwinists such as Dawkins is impossible. He even devotes an entire chapter of his book to some of the claims and statements made by Dawkins in _The Blind Watchmaker_ and shows how they are entirely wrong. And unlike Dawkins, Spetner has the solid proof to back up his claims.