Scan barcode
A review by josiahdegraaf
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
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).