Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think [Book Review]

International Herald Tribune ^ | 28 June 2006 | Nicholas Wade (reviewer)

[PatrickHenry]

Thirty years ago, the young Richard Dawkins set out to explain some new ideas in evolutionary biology to a wider audience. But he ended up restating Darwinian theory in such a broad and forceful way that his book has influenced specialists as well.

 

"Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think" is a collection of essays about Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" and its impact.

[snip]

The biologists have copious praise for Dawkins's work of synthesis, while the writers remark on his graceful and vivid style. It is quite surprising for anyone to be commended from such opposite quarters, but "The Selfish Gene," published in 1976, was unusual. Written in clear and approachable language, it worked its way so logically into the core of Darwinian theory that even evolutionary biologists were seduced into embracing Dawkins's view of their world.

Dawkins's starting point was the idea that the gene, not the individual, is the basic unit on which natural selection acts. The gene's behavior is most easily understood by assuming its interest is to get itself replicated as much as possible - hence the "selfish" gene of the title.

[big snip]

Despite a fond appreciation in this volume from his local cleric, the bishop of Oxford, Dawkins has become known to a wider public as a rationalist and a vocal atheist with little time for forms of religious obscurantism like creationism.

[snip to the end]

[PatrickHenry]

Gotta excerpt articles from this source.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[Screamname]

Richard Dawkins, wasn`t he the host of Family Feud? It`s time to play the feuuuuud! Now give me a kiss!

[D-fendr]

Dawkins is great. When he sticks to subjects he knows something about.

[lonestar67]

as anti religous bigots go he is pretty smart

[Coyoteman]

===> Lurking marker <===

[Mogollon]

Dawkins is great. When he sticks to subjects he knows something about

He knows very little about the origins of life.

[Physicist]

I'm chagrined to admit that I haven't yet read The Selfish Gene, but I've read The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, and they were superb.

[stands2reason]

I remember hearing about this theory awhile back. Didn't know it was Dawkins.


What's your take?

[stands2reason]

He has issues with logic occasionally, if it's true he believes the natural world disproves the spiritual world. But I thought this idea of his was very intriguing.

[stands2reason]

True.

[Rudder]

"He knows very little about the origins of life."

who among us knows more?

[PatrickHenry]

What's your take?

I'm not really qualified to judge his work. I'll leave that to his peers. They're almost uniformly favorable.

[R.W.Ratikal]

The tiny circulation figures for the NYT shows how few people ever read the paper. 99 percent of each issue is about the 5 boroughs of New York City of interest only to the locals.

It is questionable whether the NYT has any influence any more. It has been marginalized ever since 1958 when it helped Castro take over Cuba.

To prosecute the NYT would be to give it publicity it does not deserve.

The New York Times? Who dat be?

[stands2reason]

I gotta read that book.

I should read more biology books. I usually just focus on the philosophy of science. The last good science book that wasn't just a compilation of mag articles was about the Fleishmann-Pons cold fusion episode called "Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy" by F. David Peat. A good primer in pseudoscience.

Hello!?! What is this? Added to my WTF?files are the following "5-star" rated volumes....

Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion

Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition)

Can you guys tell me if this BS is BS?

[Paladin2]

Sorry, but the NYT still sets the pace for 'Rat talking points and (MSM)media coverage of "stories".

[LiteKeeper]

The gene's behavior is most easily understood by assuming its interest is to get itself replicated as much as possible

Implies sentience [a capacity for basic consciousness]. Where does that come from? This is the foundational weakness of evolution...totally illogical!

[Paladin2]

I'd guess that there is something to cold (catalytic) fusion, but it may never be highly energy positive.

[Dimensio]

Implies sentience [a capacity for basic consciousness]. Where does that come from? This is the foundational weakness of evolution...totally illogical!

You are taking the allegorical concept too literally.

[LiteKeeper]

Dawkins has never implied that he was speaking allegorically...no way!