Scan barcode
josiahdegraaf's review against another edition
4.0
As a creationist, I disagree with a lot of the ways that Dawkins interprets scientific studies and don't agree with most of his conclusions, but I have to give credit where credit is due: this is, by and large, a good argument for macro-evolution. He lays out complex scientific topics in easy-enough ways for a layperson to understand, explains things in entertaining ways at times, and uses a variety of studies and arguments to make his case. I think his scientific arguments are flawed (see this book), but he also makes some good points at times and I can appreciate certain arguments while disagreeing with them.
That being said, while I could respect Dawkins when he was talking about science, his arguments were laughably bad when it came to philosophy. Dawkins tries to seriously argue that the presence of pain in gazelles disproves a creator, the fact that trees try to "compete" with each other for who can be the tallest disproves a creator, and the fact that predators don't prey "optimally" disproves a creator, among other things. His lack of understanding for what the intelligent design movement argues and his college-freshman-level understanding of philosophy hurt his credibility in my book. For someone who makes a big deal about non-scientists misinterpreting science, he really should be more careful before delving into philosophy as a non-philosopher.
Overall, I appreciated reading this book to better understand scientific arguments against the creationist/intelligent design positions. Didn't persuade me, but it was well-argued (sans the philosophy bits).
Rating: 3.5-4 Stars (Good).
That being said, while I could respect Dawkins when he was talking about science, his arguments were laughably bad when it came to philosophy. Dawkins tries to seriously argue that the presence of pain in gazelles disproves a creator, the fact that trees try to "compete" with each other for who can be the tallest disproves a creator, and the fact that predators don't prey "optimally" disproves a creator, among other things. His lack of understanding for what the intelligent design movement argues and his college-freshman-level understanding of philosophy hurt his credibility in my book. For someone who makes a big deal about non-scientists misinterpreting science, he really should be more careful before delving into philosophy as a non-philosopher.
Overall, I appreciated reading this book to better understand scientific arguments against the creationist/intelligent design positions. Didn't persuade me, but it was well-argued (sans the philosophy bits).
Rating: 3.5-4 Stars (Good).
epersonae's review against another edition
3.0
When he stuck to science, it was fantastic. I loved the examples, lots of interesting clear explanations.
BUT...the asides & much of the commentary were either incomprehensible (upper-crust English culture?) or aggressively snarky. There's a tone of looking down the nose that is off-putting, even for someone who agrees with the whole damn thing. I think someone on the fence would be turned off by the tone and so unlikely to absorb a lot of the message.
BUT...the asides & much of the commentary were either incomprehensible (upper-crust English culture?) or aggressively snarky. There's a tone of looking down the nose that is off-putting, even for someone who agrees with the whole damn thing. I think someone on the fence would be turned off by the tone and so unlikely to absorb a lot of the message.
somanytictoc's review against another edition
2.0
I didn't finish this book. I really wanted to. Dawkins is well-regarded among science folks despite his curmudgeonly/hostile reputation, and I greatly enjoyed reading the very similar book [b:Why Evolution Is True|4005310|Why Evolution Is True|Jerry A. Coyne|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1442777442s/4005310.jpg|4051626]. Dawkins even refers heavily to Coyne's book as a vital read on the topic of evolution.
As it turns out, you should just read Coyne instead. Dawkins spends the entire first chapter railing against creationists, even while presenting evidence that some 30% of Americans believe some sort of creationism. What I don't understand is why Dawkins seems intent on alienating the very people who need a solid introductory text on the theory of evolution to possibly persuade them to believe the science. If so many are beyond repair, why write a book on the fundamentals of a theory they'll never believe?
I also found the book meandering and off-topic. There are entire chapters I'd recommend skipping, if you feel compelled to pick the book up in the first place. All in all, I don't recommend doing so.
As it turns out, you should just read Coyne instead. Dawkins spends the entire first chapter railing against creationists, even while presenting evidence that some 30% of Americans believe some sort of creationism. What I don't understand is why Dawkins seems intent on alienating the very people who need a solid introductory text on the theory of evolution to possibly persuade them to believe the science. If so many are beyond repair, why write a book on the fundamentals of a theory they'll never believe?
I also found the book meandering and off-topic. There are entire chapters I'd recommend skipping, if you feel compelled to pick the book up in the first place. All in all, I don't recommend doing so.
lea8914lh's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
4.25
mimosaeyes's review against another edition
4.0
Once again I find Dawkins’ prose lucid, intelligent, and humorous. My uncle gave me this book to read on a whim, not expecting that I’d devour it within a day. I find myself agreeing with his opinion that the people who read Richard Dawkins are those who need the least convincing. Still, I can appreciate the elegance (that’s the word) with which he makes his argument. There is indeed grandeur in this view of life.
maxvandervelden's review against another edition
5.0
Fantastisch informatief en humoristisch boek. Lichtjes arrogant geschreven op sommige stukken maar kan het zeker hebben.