Scan barcode
A review by bupdaddy
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
5.0
Although Dawkins doesn't seem to realize that you can't reason someone away from a position they don't hold by reason, so trying to arm people to counter the arguments of evolution 'skeptics' is a futile endeavor; however, getting a lot of the gaps filled in about evolution is a fascinating subject for us dilettantes who accept that science isn't intentionally lying to us and are interested in how the accepted science came to be accepted.
Yes, those are ironic quotes around the word skeptics, because metaphorically waving ones hands and repeating nuh-uh isn't really skepticism, it's willful ignorance.
So, sure, one may hear from science deniers that evolution isn't science because you can't test it in a lab. People that claim that are both wrong about the necessity of a lab to test a hypothesis, and the claim that evolution hasn't been tested in a lab. There are experiments where evolution has been demonstrated in a lab - bacteria that have multiple generations in a day, so that evolutionary timelines are years instead of millennia. And the bacteria adapt. Is this good to read about because it will help you convince somebody who's invested in not believing evolution? Of course not. You can't change anybody's mind. Only they can, and if they've predetermined they won't change their mind you're wasting your time. But it's cool as heck. The experiment, that is. And Dawkins explains it, perfectly striking the balance between making it accessible to the layperson, without leaving out substance.
Is the anecdote wherein a denier, who couldn't accept that random mutations could advance from a single cell to a complete human, with a nervous system, miles of blood vessels, sight, hearing, etc., might arise in billions of years, was confronted with the observation that she accomplished it herself in nine months, going to even begin to sway someone who's dug in their heels? Duh no. But the chapter about how we're metaphorical origami rather than constructions from blueprints elucidates so much, and makes the observations that humans have gills early in embryonic development, as birds have teeth and bony tails, make sense. These aren't flukes, they're expected observations of undesigned results of millions of random prototypes.
So, please don't tell Dawkins I said this, because I hate to crush a dream, but the book works for unintended reasons. It's a great survey course in evolution. It cannot work to sway your extended family at Thanksgiving because they aren't genuinely interested in allowing their minds to be changed. And one thing dumb ol' evolution hasn't accomplished yet is allowing objective evidence to force someone to change their minds. Apparently there's no competitive advantage in it.
Yes, those are ironic quotes around the word skeptics, because metaphorically waving ones hands and repeating nuh-uh isn't really skepticism, it's willful ignorance.
So, sure, one may hear from science deniers that evolution isn't science because you can't test it in a lab. People that claim that are both wrong about the necessity of a lab to test a hypothesis, and the claim that evolution hasn't been tested in a lab. There are experiments where evolution has been demonstrated in a lab - bacteria that have multiple generations in a day, so that evolutionary timelines are years instead of millennia. And the bacteria adapt. Is this good to read about because it will help you convince somebody who's invested in not believing evolution? Of course not. You can't change anybody's mind. Only they can, and if they've predetermined they won't change their mind you're wasting your time. But it's cool as heck. The experiment, that is. And Dawkins explains it, perfectly striking the balance between making it accessible to the layperson, without leaving out substance.
Is the anecdote wherein a denier, who couldn't accept that random mutations could advance from a single cell to a complete human, with a nervous system, miles of blood vessels, sight, hearing, etc., might arise in billions of years, was confronted with the observation that she accomplished it herself in nine months, going to even begin to sway someone who's dug in their heels? Duh no. But the chapter about how we're metaphorical origami rather than constructions from blueprints elucidates so much, and makes the observations that humans have gills early in embryonic development, as birds have teeth and bony tails, make sense. These aren't flukes, they're expected observations of undesigned results of millions of random prototypes.
So, please don't tell Dawkins I said this, because I hate to crush a dream, but the book works for unintended reasons. It's a great survey course in evolution. It cannot work to sway your extended family at Thanksgiving because they aren't genuinely interested in allowing their minds to be changed. And one thing dumb ol' evolution hasn't accomplished yet is allowing objective evidence to force someone to change their minds. Apparently there's no competitive advantage in it.