Great book with a great title. Richard Dawkings is an absolute master in using controversy and philosophical disputes to smuggle fundamental knowledge about evolutionary biology that could otherwise be seen as intimidating or just plain boring by a layman. Just look at some of teh chapters titles: "Explaining the very improbable", "Origins and miracles", "Explosions and spirals", "The one true tree of life", "Doomed rivals". As a minimum, you must concede this guy is a master communicator. How could you not be interested in finding out what this chapters are about...

Anyhow, all the chapters in this book are about giving you a detailed, understandable account of how evolution and natural selection works, and clearing out any doubts you might have conceived or received by others.

It's masterfully written, fascinating and engaging. What surprises me is why all the "religious" fuss abut this book is about. This is not a book defending atheism, or a book trying to demostrate the non existence of God. No real scientist, atheist or not, would ever dream to do such a thing. This is just about explaining reality through rational thinking, something that any sane person should approve of. Even deeply religious people should not be afraid of this book, or of Darvin's theory. What repulsive kind of a plastic God would be the one that literally makes a man out of clay and pops it on earth just like a kid pushes a barbie doll in her little fake house. Or jumping from biology to astronomy what kind of claustrophobic world would have given to us if the enciant view of the universe was a little ball with the "spheres" rotating around it.

I find that those views are the really offensive towards God, so if you believe in God you should be so much more relieved and happy as nature reveals some of her complexities and her beauty, instead of forcing the limited and obtuse human view to God.

Besides, there are far more serious arguments that question the plausibility of God than natural selection and who the first men were..

for example all the sorrow and pain that come to us men from time to time because of wars, accidents, natural disasters..And even if most of these plagues can be traced back more or less directly to men themselves.. how about children born with deformities or terrible illnesses that doom them to death or to a crippled life. Those are way more troubling mysteries to a believer than natural selection theory...Then why Darwin's theory is so adversed by some exponent fo the various churches? Well my idea is that it is one of the few fundamental scientific theories that is at the same time so illuminating and so simple that everyone can appreciate it an fully understand it.And for this reason it leaves you hungry for more truth and more reasoning and promotes love and passion for scientific inquiry and reasoning.. And those who detain the power never like the idea of having to give and account of that power to intelligent, rational, inquisitive minds.

So in the end, in a sense, especially if there actually is a God, you better read this book and use it to enrich your culture and open your mind. If you are an atheist, you will love life better, if you believe in God you will appreciate his ways even more.

The Blind Watchmaker is a fantastic read whether you believe in evolution or not. Dr. Richard Dawkins has made the theory of evolution understandable to me even though I am not a scientist and have only a limited knowledge of what the theory actually is. I got out of this book exactly what I was hoping to get, which is a greater understanding of what an evolutionist really believes, which can get skewed when hearing arguments from the other side. Both sides (evolutionists & creationists) like to insult the positions of the other without really understanding or even caring about what those arguments really are. Both sides take the other out of context and rather than engage in debate seek to question the credentials, sanity, and integrity of the other. Both sides are guilty of this behavior and both sides have done harm to their own arguments in the process.

For the evolutionist, this book is a wonderful resource because it lays out some complex topics in easy to comprehend detail. However, it does not prove anything. It offers the typical "must have beens" and "it is likely that..." and so forth that so often accompany these unprovable arguments. Rather than try to convince you that this theory is less solid than the scientific community would like to admit, I would suggest that you read it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ask the question: If such and such happened...how did it happen? Isn't this what characterizes great scientists anyway? Dr. Dawkins offers suggestions on how things might have happened and seems to think that just because he has proposed a scientific sounding hypothetical that the theory is proven. I would ask the reader to go deeper and seek the truth. Insist on proof. Blind acceptance is foolish and entirely unscientific. At least, that is what the scientists tell us Christians, isn't it?

For the creationist, I would suggest reading this book so that you have a fuller understanding of what the evolution arguments really are. So often we are arguing points that are not really being made by evolutionists, and we come off as being disingenuous, misquoting, and even lying about the things we claim the other side is saying. There is plenty to be debated in the actual arguments of evolutionists so let's try to educate ourselves on our adversaries. It will make our arguments stronger, and force them to defend their real positions rather than easy to knock down straw men. We ought not be afraid of their scientific positions if we truly believe we are right. For myself, I freely admit to bringing a religious bias to the debate. Everybody brings their preconceptions with them everywhere they go. There is no such thing as complete objectivity. We ought not pretend to be objective (either side) because we are not. What we can do is be respectful and present arguments based on what is actually being said.

With a topic like evolution vs. intelligent design, you are bound to get some blind 5 star reviews from people who believe the general idea of evolution without really understanding it, and some blind 1-2 star reviews from people who do not actually WANT to understand it, and thus try to discredit it. Ignore both kinds of review. There's another group of reviewers who might give a lower rating on the premise that the work is not empirical enough or rigorous enough; those people have misunderstood the purpose of the book.

WHAT TO EXPECT

The context and tone are conversational in nature, even if the core ideas are derived from an array of scientific inquiry over the last 150 years. Imagine the author sitting in a coffee shop with you during a bad rain storm (so you've got time), hoping to explain why the main tenets of evolution are important and worth understanding, and why the opposing theories are lesser ones from a scientific standpoint. This is what Dawkins set out to do and he largely succeeds.

It's not hard to see why this work is considered "a classic." Dawkins weaves an interesting and detailed account of the basic principles underlying evolution, including dispelling common misunderstandings like the idea that natural selection is a random process. That is, many people conflate genetic mutation (random) with natural selection, which favors specific kinds of mutations in certain environments (not random). No degrees in molecular biology, genetics, or zoology are required to understand the basic principles described in the book, though you may find afterward that you have a desire to order books about these topics (I did). There are also some laugh out-loud passages which I did not expect. While the author does at points veer off-course and ramble a bit (who doesn't), the old saw about babies and bathwater clearly applies (and not much bathwater at that).

In short, if the average reader approaches this with an open mind, one cannot help but have a better understanding of evolution than when you started, regardless of whether or not you personally find every argument made compelling (you're not a bad person if you don't, nor virtuous if you do). We need to learn to debate these things without the toxicity applied. Everyone should start by logging out of their social media, which mainly serve to spread misinformation and disinformation, and culture wars outrage (i.e. it serves the Meta's profit margins, not us).

PERSONAL TAKEAWAYS

While most of the key mechanisms of evolution are known and their effects observable with modern technology (e.g. reading and comparing the genome of two suspected but not obviously related species) and/or through a robust understanding of molecular biology, there are parts of the theory that remain unproven. More specifically, formal proofs of concept of the origins of the first self-replicating cells. This is not unexpected given the time scales involved and the very incomplete fossil record that we have (unfortunately many kinds of things that we would need to study fossils OF, don't actually fossilize when they die). This is also where the typical "God of the Gaps" arguments made by many intelligent design (or ID) supporters originate. Which for many of them amounts to "you can't show me a fossil record today of how certain kinds of cells came into being 4 billion years ago, ergo this entire theory is false." Which is, on its face, absurd.

If I believe at all in the value of scientific inquiry and thinking, then I must admit that two things are true:

1) there is by now a literal mountain of empirical evidence — in several related scientific fields, ranging from physics to physiology — that points directly to the cellular machinery of what we call "evolution" at work, over very long time scales, in every kind of living thing. To deny the validity of the core parts of evolution, is about as foolish as an educated person choosing to believe that an entire political party is filled with devil-worshipping baby-eaters, despite there being no wide-scale reports of satanic altars and missing babies.

2) In a wide array of scientific fields, we have scenarios where some parts of a theory are definitively known and proven and others not yet proven (i.e. proven in the same way science has proven than atoms can be split and tornadoes are formed when certain kinds of frontal boundaries collide with one another under specific conditions), and evolution is one of these fields. Admitting that something is unknown is NOT tantamount to admitting it is invalid! : ) There remain problems unsolved / proofs unmade; that is OK. It means we have work to do.

Imagine this conversation between two people (two scientists if you like, no need to make it a scientist and a minister):

"You say we can see from countless optical telescope (and other) observations, and crunching of data according to the laws of physics that have been proven valid many thousands of times over, that there is evidence of an unseen type of mass in the universe, that effects everything from the appearance of distant objects (gravitational lensing) to how galaxies interact.... but because you can't show me a visible proof this source of mass exists, I must conclude your entire interconnected theory of solar systems and galaxies and galaxy clusters, and how they interact, is false." Absurd, right? That's what many (not all) ID proponents do with evolution.

And that leads me to the last point, which is over the last 20 years or so, molecular biologists, molecular engineers, and evolutionary biologists have been generating ever-more-compelling test results in controlled lab conditions, of self-contained, self-replicating cells arising from nothing but simple organic compounds, elemental catalysts, and different forms of energy. They're not there yet, but one by one the technical hurdles are falling; the cells we're capable of generating today are much more robust than when we started 20 years ago. It would be great, therefore, to see Dawkins or perhaps his favored understudy, either re-write portions of this book to include these developments (a lot has happened n biology and genetics since the 90s, including things like systems theory), or write a new book with the same general scope and audience.

I have read his The God Delusion and was already familiar with Dr. Dawkins style. This book was another level. He interspersed biology and physics in impressive detail, while tackling a philosophical discussion. He has dealt each chapter like an honest educator, who gives his readers objectivity(which can be harsh at times) rather than sugar-coating anything. I knew about bat technology but I learned so much more through chapter-2. Infact I got curious and found out more about bats. He drew a wonderful analogy between man-made technology vs technology developed by natural selection by using bat technology as an example. There are many such examples he discussed. And at any point, I did not feel that he was cherry-picking to justify what he wanted to convey. Hence, the honest approach. It was an eye-opener to get clarity if we are a product of random chance or natural selection or designed by some superpower.

I would highly recommend this book to everyone as one can see scientific laws are objective. Will it make some uncomfortable? For sure. Even then, I will encourage to read the book fully.

Professor Dawkins has made an exceptional effort at an impossible task. He attempts to explain evolutionary theory in lay terms, aimed at explaining the science to those whose minds are not utterly closed to understanding.

For those who can say, with a straight face, "Evolution is only a theory." or "Evolution is not science." this book will not make much of a difference. Mostly, those folks who see evolution as a challenge to their faith or dogma won't bother to read the book. Although it's pretty clear from earlier reviews that the omission doesn't stop them from writing "criticism." But for anyone whose world view allows them to think critically, this may be the best work to date explaining the why and how of evolution.

Rev. William Paley probably invented the watchmaker metaphor. Dawkins set out to demolish it. From the title to a detailed explanation of the history and mechanism, form natural selection to detailed genetics, he demonstrates that evolutionary theory is not only overwhelmingly accepted but the only known theory that explains and unifies biological sciences.

But Dawkins doesn't stop there. As if to demonstrate the critical difference between science and faith, he devotes a substantial portion of his argument to challenging and analyzing Punctuationism, the theory developed by the late Steven Jay Gould. Apart from his other points, he is demonstrating that science accepts nothing uncritically. Faith, by contrast, does not permit such critical analysis. It requires you to accept premises without criticism.

Subtle and whithering; sarcastic and reassuring. This is at once an excellent explanation of evolution's precepts and a formidable rebuttal to those whose attacks on evolution mask faith as science. In particular, his rebuttal of "intelligent design" and its proponents is masterful.

For those who must face religious and other non-scientific attacks on science, this book is indispensable. For those who are honestly baffled by the controversy, this is an excellent analysis. For those who would presume to discredit evolutionary science: you must rebut these arguments or concede.

Highly recommended. Critical to educators.

"The Blind Watchmaker" is the antithesis of the take-no-position surveys that are regularly served up as scientific literacy booster shots. In these books the author, frequently a journalist, earnestly runs around interviewing a bevy of competing scientists who, naturally enough, are very taken with their own work but not too enthusiastic about the other competitors who share the cutting edge of whatever field-du-jour is involved. The bemused reader is left wondering what, if anything, to conclude about the cross-currents which have been described (but not illuminated) by the maddeningly neutral science writer.

Prof. Dawkins, by contrast, does not go softly or neutrally into the controversies of evolutionary biology and the philosophical issues that any inquiry into life's origins must invoke. He steadfastly defends the Darwinist outlook, not out of reflex or veneration, but because continual research and evaluation of the factual record, by himself and many others, appear to justify it.

"Watchmaker" exemplifies the best kind of science popularization, in which a professional scientist gives you a seminar, a one-on-one tour of his or her field. You are treated as an intelligent skeptic, open to being convinced but not to being indoctrinated or patronized. Dawkins lucidly builds the logical case for evolution as an inevitable result of two interacting factors. Factor one is the automatic natural occurrence of random, incremental, molecular-level mutations in reproductive (germ cell) DNA . Factor two, also automatic and natural, is the distinctly non-random selection filter of survivability at the whole-creature level. Dawkins also takes ample space to dissect and refute many arguments, bogus and legitimate, from laughable to laudable, AGAINST evolution. You may not agree, but you will learn about the issues and personalities of a great scientific debate from a skilled and ingenious participant.

I was especially impressed by the thoroughness with which Dawkins addresses a pair of forgivable weaknesses that prevent many people from grasping the essential reasonableness of evolution. These are insufficient feeling for the immensity of geologic time spans, and inadequate understanding of what is, and is not, probabilistically feasible. The second point, in particular, must be successfully communicated to combat the venerable misconception that wildly unlikely coincidences are required to explain evolution's stunning results.

A good deal of the criticism leveled against Dawkins seems to stem from the underlying thesis of the book - that evolution is a blind process, not influenced by the thinking or planning of any conscious entity. Those who support the existence of such an entity seem to have agreed by consensus to call it a "designer." I can easily understand why any thoughtful person would be tempted to assume a designer when studying the sublime and superb technology that all living things embody. The more you learn, the more awestruck you must be. In my opinion, Prof. Dawkins is the epitome of such a thoughtful person. So when he concludes that the case for a designer is weak, I am more than willing to pay close attention.

At present the defenders of designer intervention seem to have retreated to the pre-cellular era of molecular genesis. Numerous Amazon.com reviews have warned that one should not pass judgment on the current state of the evolution debate without considering the irreducible complexity arguments now in vogue. Frankly, I wouldn't want to miss them.

"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design", by Richard Dawkins, W.W. Norton & Company, NY. ISBN-13 978-0-3793-31570-7, PB 454 Pgs. in 8 1/4" x 5 1/2" format that includes 4 Pg. Biblio. Plus 6Pg. Index & Key.

Inveiglements limited to a dozen B/W illustrations, several being elemental hypothetical computerized line graphics, others those phantasmagorical B/W illustrations similar to bleached-out cave drawings with chromosomal & genetically overtones and patronizations etc. by unnamed illustrators of great potential.

Author Dawkins, FPS, is an esteemed ethnologist, & evolutionary biologist, prolific science writer, editor and authored a dozen books including the "Selfish Gene", Climbing Mount Improbable", The God Delusion", "River out of Eden", and "The Ancestor's Tale". Writing is erudite prose easily understood by in a style provoking challenging thinking by the reader: - the reader/writer interaction promotes fuller understanding of his informational-educational mission in this book not too-oft seen in science books, being significantly crisp when evolution is being discussed, a topic too often abstracted as theory compared to most theses on geology, history, and mathematics or astronomy.

"The Blind Watchmaker" has been in print for nearly 20 years and remains one of the finest expositions on Darwinism to date. He provides 11 chapters, and teases the reader with some simplistic computer modeling giving us a visual insight into the realities of structural alterations that help us visualize how the long-standing standardized evolutionary branching tree of life diagrams can be more realistically explained. Throughout the book emphasis is placed on belief in the necessary concept that evolution is via the accumulation of "small changes" and the profound significance of speciation. Emphasis is given to explaining the vast majority of evolutionary changes, at the molecular genetic level, are neutral with respect to natural selection. The unscientific political policy by T.D. Lysenko, Director of Institute of Genetics in the Soviet Union, taught with venomous Mendelian intolerance, promoting Lamarckism - setting back genetic research for several decades in Russia.

Candidly, I believe that anyone professing to be knowledgeable in evolution must have read "The Blind Watchmaker". To be complete, one might digest "The Selfish Genius" to smooth out wrinkles that may have been encountered.

Back in the 18th or 19th Century, a man named William Paley came up with a very clever argument to prove the existance of god: Say you find a watch lying on the beach. Just by looking at the watch, you "know" it was made for a purpose. Such an odd collection of materials did not assemble itself. It is not an accident, and it must have been designed by someone specially for the purpose of telling time. Where there is a watch, there must be an intelligent watch maker. Well, human beings are much better designed than watches, so we too must have been created by an intelligent designer. That designer is god.

That's a brilliant argument, and it sure would have convinced me. Dawkins takes that argument, and smashes it to pieces. (He does not insult Paley, of course. Neither did Einstien insult Newton).

Dawkins explains how an object (or plant or animal) can be "designed" by the simple process of natural selection, without anyone to do the selecting. All it takes is replication (sexual reproduction) and limited resources. The laws of physics do the rest. The species that are most successful at surviving tend to survive -- it sounds so simple when you think of it that way. So, each generation has more of the successful models and less of the unsuccessful ones.

Once in a while random copying errors occur. Most of these make the plant or animal less successful, and those genes are not passed on. Once in a while, however, the error leads to a better design, and the new gene wins out. Over long, long periods of time, very efficient and very complicated designs can and will show up, even though they have not been designed by anyone. Just as the Grand Canyon was created by a long slow process, so were we.

If you want to understand evolution, this is the place to start (Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker and many others will pick up from there). If you believe in intelligent design, and want to keep believing, do NOT read this book.

Good book, logic at the Best.

Arguably Dawkins best book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' is exactly what the doctor ordered for the American religious fundamentalist epidemic that has plagued its society with dogmatically closed-minded, kindergarten-level refutations of evolution for too long. Unfortunately, this book is needed as much as ever over 30 years after it was written, and the reason for that has been shown to me over and over again in my personal life: the people who need most to understand the content of this book never read more than a few pages before giving up. That said, the well-articulated and technical descriptions are well worth the investment of concentration that the book asks of you.

Muhteşem bir baskı kalitesi. Elime bir günde geldi.

Comprei pra dar de presente ao meu marido. Ele gostou muito, já estava interessado nesse livro a um bom tempo.

Extremely interesting.