Reddit Reddit reviews The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

We found 26 Reddit comments about The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
Check price on Amazon

26 Reddit comments about The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design:

u/Pelusteriano · 21 pointsr/biology

I'm not especially fond of the point of view of Dawkins (too reductionist and with tints of dogmatism from his part), the only book I would truly recommend from him would be:

  • The Blind Watchmaker, it arguments why intelligent design has no ground in the universe and why evolution is a complex phenomena.

    The author that I would truly recommend, since it's more enjoyable to read, less dogmatic, less pedantic, is Stephen J. Gould. Some recommendations:

  • Wonderful Life, where he exposes the amazing biota that inhabited Burguess Shale, the most important fossil deposit

  • The Panda's Thumb, which exposes why evolution isn't directional, therefore meaning that there isn't intelligent design, with loads of interesting examples that only make sense if you consider that evolution "decides as things come and uses what it has", a personal favourite

    Other personal favourite from another author:

  • The ghosts of evolution by Connie Barlow. The book exposes lots of examples of things that we can find in nature up to this day, but are left from past lives, like why are there still avocados?
u/absolewdly · 19 pointsr/Animemes

This is a popular classic, and the author is actually a biologist, not some politician or professional writer that has no idea about what he's rambling on. (Though he has taken on a political atheist agenda in more recent works it seems.)

Mildly relevant, the author of the book is also the guy that coined the term "meme" as a kind of concept for genes on the civilization-level.

You may also want to look into this one, again written by an actual scientist, though merely a psychologist. It really goes into detail how dysfunctional the human mind is and how futile it is to chase after "happiness" (whatever that may be) - so much so that halfway through the book the author concludes that those brief weeks or months after finishing high school and before going on to college was the happiest he was likely to ever be, so why go on living? But then the book takes on a more theological direction and goes on about how the point of life is not hedonism but doing something for the greater good and what not, and it's fairly downhill from there - so be wary. But he's nevertheless adamant about distinguishing facts (what is) from ideals (what should be) - as any decent scientist would.

edit:
Also probably mildly relevant for the second book, given the sub we're in: there's a bit in there about why incest is still such a taboo for us, despite humans being so supposedly "enlightened".

u/Poulet_Roti · 6 pointsr/biology

I would recommend (in this order):

At the waters edge or anything by Carl Zimmer

Shadows of our forgotten ancestors by Carl Sagan

The blind watchmaker or anything by Richard Dawkins

Spillover or anything by David Quammen

u/leaftrove · 4 pointsr/biology

Why Evolution is True -Great intro to evolution

The Blind Watchmaker- Dawkins' best introduction to evolution book. If it intrigues you have a look at his other works.

Definitely watch this. One of the best and most simple lecture series on Evolution. By none other than Dawkins himself. Very basic in presentation and entertaining series:
Growing up in the Universe

Why dont you take a university class on Evolution? Or just take a bio 101 class which is going to teach evolution briefly in 1-2 lectures.

I just stumbled upon this course. Which is a evolution course at Yale Open Courses that you might want to check out:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/

u/angrymonkey · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Along those lines, Dawkins is great for explaining evolution in easy-to-understand detail. Pick pretty much any book by him and you'll get a very good education.

u/Mchamilton · 3 pointsr/atheism

The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. It's laser targeted at this question, readable, and brilliant.

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703

u/glassfrog · 2 pointsr/atheism

The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins

This book was so accessible and inspiring. The first chapter obliterated my christian home-schooling science upbringing. Every chapter after that, beautifully distilled the majesty of the natural world. I've loved the other "Four Horseman's" books, but this was my genesis as a satisfied atheist.

u/gehenom · 2 pointsr/science

The concept is simple, but the implications are tremendous and often counterintuitive. Do yourself a favor if you want to understand. Go buy:

u/TheNaturalMan · 2 pointsr/exmormon

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins is an excellent read. There is also a 1987 documentary narrated by Dawkins by the same name. It touches upon one of the creationists' favorite "designs" of nature, the eye, and how it likely evolved.

edit: links

u/AlSweigart · 2 pointsr/atheism

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't really go into anything new or original, but the strength of the book is that is a great, concise summary of all the beginning arguments for atheism.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

I'd follow it with Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", also a good recommendation. Same goes for Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/

Christopher Hitchens is a bit vitriolic for some, but "God is not Great" has some nuggets in it.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/

I personally didn't like Sam Harris' "End of Faith" but I did like his "Letter to a Christian Nation".

http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Vintage-Harris/dp/0307278778/

For the topic of evolution, Talk Origins is great (and free) http://toarchive.org/
Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is also a good read (and short). Not so short but also good are Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "Unweaving the Rainbow"

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/

http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/

http://www.amazon.com/Unweaving-Rainbow-Science-Delusion-Appetite/dp/0618056734/

u/MisanthropicScott · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/haroldp · 2 pointsr/atheism

This is the, "Blind Watchmaker" argument. If you were walking around in the wilderness and came upon an intricate mechanical pocket watch, it would be obvious to you that the watch had a maker, an engineer, even if you didn't know what it was. Life has mechanisms much more complex than any watch, therefore...

This argument has been addressed at length. Do not let anyone abuse the word, "random" to describe the theory of evolution. It's not just dice rolling.

u/MajorWeenis · 1 pointr/atheism

For the lazy:

u/thesunmustdie · 1 pointr/atheism

It's a gradual ramp of tiny little improvements over millions/billions of years.

Because all living things compete for finite resources like sunlight and/or food, the organisms with the optimal traits (perhaps it's a cheetah with enough speed to chase down prey) get to live and pass on their genes. These genes are inherited by offspring. With each generation there are subtle changes in the genetic information being passed on — in response to the environment. This is called epigenetics. With massive amounts of geological time, all these subtle little response modifications eventually add up to something really substantial like human beings with a complex immune system.

An easy way to convince yourself of it is to look at artificial selection and how animal breeders "play god". Take pigeon breeders: They decide what kind of bird they want — perhaps it's one with a long beak — and out of the hundreds of pigeons they have they select two with the most prominent beaks and mate them. They continue doing this over the generations. Several years later, you would already see the massive difference in the beak length of the youngest experiment pigeon when compared with the other normal pigeons.
Natural selection works in a very similar way to this.



Edit: As for book recommendations? Dawkins is the best at explaining it if you ask me:


Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth

Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmarker

u/TonyBLiar · 1 pointr/Christianity

On the whole universe expansion thing, this video should help. I apologies in advance for it being introduced by Richard Dawkins—but like it or not he was an eminent biologist long before he became the poster child for activist atheism and the main lecturer, Lawrence Krauss is perhaps one of the best communicators of astrophysics and science in general since Richard Feynman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Not caring about the nuts and bolts implications of what you say you believe is not an uncommon dichotomy in believers in belief. If that qualifies as yet another snide remark, again I can only repeat that it isn't supposed to read that way as it certainly doesn't sound like that when I say it in my head. Maybe something weird happens between the synapses and the keyboard that makes me think I'm being clear when I read like a wanker. Who knows?

Whatever the reason I seem to have inadvertently made you feel as if I'm selling you something. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's no genuine leather-bound books on their way to you, no 30 day money back guarantee if you order now. All I'm trying to do—all I ever hope comes of my passion for communicating what I've learned—is pass on the fact that all you need to do, to learn about the beauty of the godless universe for yourself, is pick up a book on a topic you know nothing about and start reading.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268026326&sr=1-8

u/mouseknuckle · 1 pointr/atheism

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703

Douglas Adams described the book this way:
"It's like throwing open the doors and windows in a dark and stuffy room. You realize what a jumble of half-digested ideas we normally live with, particularly those of us with an arts education. We "sort of" understand evolution, though we secretly think there's probably a bit more to it than that. Some of us even think that there's some "sort of" god, which takes care of the bits that sound a little bit improbable. Dawkins brings a flood of light and fresh air, and shows us that there is a dazzling clarity to the structure of evolution that is breathtaking when we suddenly see it. And if we don't see it, then, quite literally, we don't know the first thing about who we are and where we come from."

u/diesuke · 1 pointr/videos

Another point of contention of mine is when people who have no idea how evolution works, try to rationalize their own prejudice, whether that prejudice is racism, or sexism or homophobia or something entirely different.

I suggest you start reading this
You have some pretty strong assumptions that just because a mutation doesn't lead to reproduction it will be weeded out. Bees have drones that are sterile and do not pass their genes. Does that mean that Drones choose to be drones?
You also assume that it is the gays who have to carry the gay genes and not the mothers. I remember a study that showed that women who have more boys are more likely to produce gay offspring, so it is very likely that whatever gene or combination of genetics and embryonical development produces gays, it is actually transmitted by straight couples.

Also there was a famous study that showed that an identical twin that has been separated at birth is more likely to be gay if his twin is also gay. There definitely is a genetic influence. If you would like, I can actually provide citation when I can find the time.

Also, there is no such thing as a "subconscious decision". A decision is either subconscious or is not a decision at all. def

Again, you are incredibly obtuse and refractory to any arguments of common sense and dismissive of my experience. Seriously, why would I lie? Why would we all lie? Are you saying that all gay people are liars?

u/DCL88 · 1 pointr/askscience

A very good book that deals these topics, both error rate of DNA and mutation rate is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I know I'm really not answering the question but if you want to know more that's a very good read.

u/gadarquea · 1 pointr/atheism

Since you mentioned your father often uses the watchmaker argument, what better way to counter his viewpoint than by suggesting he read "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design" by Richard Dawkins.
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311707312&sr=1-1

Makes for a great read I hope you and your father like it.

u/alexgmcm · 1 pointr/books

For Quantum Physics I cannot recommend Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide it has enough maths to make it worth reading, but the equations etc. are in supplemental boxes with explanations and investigations so you can ignore all the maths if you want. It tends to focus on the applications of quantum physics in semiconductors, superconductors which is good to learn about as it is easier to comprehend than the really tricky philosophical implications.

I would also recommend The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, because it has more philosophical stuff in it, and although it is broader and not just about quantum physics but includes relativity and stuff too, it is an awesome book and you won't regret reading it.

For evolutionary biology I would recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, it is a Science book so don't worry if you don't like his aggressive atheism as if I recall correctly it doesn't rear it's head in the book at all. It is especially good if you enjoy Computer Science as he makes some analogies between life and programs which are obviously easier to appreciate if you have some experience (Dawkins was a programmer for many years).

I don't know what paleo-anthropology is so unfortunately I can't recommend anything there, but I would be extremely happy if you could enlighten me and perhaps recommend some texts. (Not terribly helpful, I know :P )

u/blackstar9000 · 0 pointsr/atheism

Hijacked is too strong a word, but I think two points are notable. First, arguably most of the really popular and notable books on evolution released in the last twenty years were penned by New Atheists proper or by authors who basically fit the New Atheist mold but aren't one of the four specific authors. A big part of the reason for that is simply Richard Dawkins. He's a popular writer and a biologist, so it was almost inevitable that he'd pen books about Darwin and that they'd hit the bestsellers lists. And if it were limited to Dawkins, I'd think nothing of it, but there's Dennett and Shermer, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Harris release one before long. Another part of the reason is that a number of the other books about Darwinian evolution that have sold well in past decades were penned by creationists like Michael Behe, so a certain measure of response is, from my perspective at least, welcome. At that point, it's about market share, and we don't want creationists having too big a piece of the market share. Their point of view is, after all, problematic to say the least. If it weren't for my second point, it wouldn't even be problematic that a) popular books on evolution are basically split between creationists and New Atheists, and b) that New Atheists make up such a large share of that market.

But my second point is this: New Atheists aren't just popularizing or "standing up for" Darwinian evolution; they're attaching a political and ideological agenda to that effort, and that runs several risks, the most obvious being that it can polarize people against evolution, as some commentators have warned it might do in Muslim countries. To my mind, the more insidious risk is that, once you've connected a scientific theory to a political or ideological effort, it becomes all to easy for its patrons to see it in those terms even when it has nothing to do with that effort. Without much noticing it, pro-Darwinians may start seeing barely articulated associations as part and parcel of evolution, until evolution is something more than a scientific model. Dawkins, for example, has turned evolution into a theological disproof with the subtitle of "The Blind Watchmaker". The title of Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" sums up the achievement of evolutionary theory as a form of polemic against intelligent design theory. Dawkins, at least, is close enough to the professional practice of biology that he probably doesn't need reminding that evolution isn't really about atheism, but all of these guys are writing books for people who don't have the continual reminder of working in the field where evolutionary theory is most functional.

I say none of this in defense of the Guardian article, but I do think there's something to be said for the idea that our society stands to lose by leaving it up to the New Atheists to give evolution its popularly received meaning.

u/JamesCole · 0 pointsr/philosophy

IMO, if you're interested in philosophy, your first port of call should be to get an understanding of evolution. It's surprisingly relevant to so many topics in philosophy, and I think so many misunderstandings that occur in philosophy come from not really appreciating an evolutionary viewpoint. There's sure to be quite a few people who'd disagree with me on this.

I'd recommend these books, all of which are quite readable and have a somewhat philosophic bent:

Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins

Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennett

u/DabScience · -3 pointsr/DebateReligion

> As you walk around the created world, you find evidence of things in the past - evidence that the game authors wanted you to find, because it creates a mood or gives a piece of a puzzle or just looks cool.

You should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Especially when you imply things like 'God made the Earth seem older then it is'. Which fits the hilarious, 'God buried fossils to test our faith'. Both of which clearly go against all evidence found in the real world.

> because he's God, his back story would be perfect and complete

Paris shootings. cough Need I go on? Cause I can. For literally ever. How do theist stay so blind to the active world to believe such ideals?

> Blah blah blah hypothetical nothingness.

No. Seriously, that last paragraph was without a doubt the biggest cop out, gobbledygook answer I have ever heard. Wow. I can't even.