Paul's Reviews > The Blind Watchmaker

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

by
416390
's review
Jan 18, 13

bookshelves: i-bet-i-never-finish-these, god-botheration
Read in July, 2005

I should explain the point about the watchmaker.

A SMALL ROCK

If you’re walking along in the countryside and you come across a rock, you don’t say, well, where the hell did that come from and who made it? It’s a rock. No one cares. There’s no notices stuck on trees or printed in local free newspapers anywhere saying “have you seen this rock? Description – roughly three inches by four by three; last seen in the Dorchester area; undistinctive grey colouring; answers to the name of “rock”; reward – please call this number; WE MISS YOU ROCK” . It’s a rock.

ON THE OTHER HAND, A GOLD WATCH


Now, if you saw a beautiful gold watch on your walk in the countryside, you would say – lo! a watch – I deduce that someone has lost a watch and it is here; also, I furthermore deduce that there must be a God.” Richard Dawkins says that watches, or indeed anything complicated, do not infer the existence of a watchmaker. Or, to use a different analogy, a book, which can be a complicated thing, does not infer the existence of an author. You could say well, here’s a book called The Blind Watchmaker and it says it’s by Richard Dawkins, so we see that Richard Dawkins is the author and he wrote this book, but Richard Dawkins would say NO! it doesn’t, have you not been paying attention, have you been giggling and passing notes in the back row again?

EVOLUTION OF THE SEMICOLON

What happened is that gradually, over many billions of years, language formed, inconceivably slowly, for instance it took ten million years for commas to evolve out of a full stop, and another ten million for the exotic semi-colon to evolve out of the comma. So this book The Blind Watchmaker (like all other books) evolved slowly. We have fossils to prove this. They show the missing links. We have, for instance, copies of the book which are called The Blond Watchmaker dating from the Devonian period – it took several millions of years for the Blond to evolve into the Blind, you see. I read that Mexican paleontologists recently unearthed a copy called The Bland Watchmaker. Going back further , we find all sorts of evolutionary byways that, because of natural selection, died out eventually. One manuscript from the late Pleistocene period which is currently on display at the University of East Anglia shows a strange hybrid between an early version of The Blind Watchmaker and Alice in Wonderland in which the famous teaparty scene features a pterodactyl, a plesiosaur (so very unlikely) and a crazed archaeopteryx. This unviable literary form did not survive, as we know. Natural selection, although brutal from our limited human perspective, explains the evolution of complex things.

RELIGION CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY TWILIGHT IS POPULAR

God cannot explain why the book species “Stephanie Myers” and “Dan Brown”, for instance, proliferate wildly in many varied habitats, whilst arguably more beautiful forms like Henry James, Proust, and the Golden Tamarin



dwindle to the point where human intervention from libraries and literary professors are the only thing keeping them from sinking into oblivion – no, God cannot explain this. But Richard Dawkins (also known as "Science") can.

Sorry, that should be “Richard Dawkins”.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Blind Watchmaker.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-18 of 18) (18 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Velvetink (last edited Jun 06, 2011 05:57am) (new)

Velvetink Dawkins isn't easy to navigate sometimes.. ;D I'm still trying to get my head around Stephen Hawking saying we can't travel back in time because of wormhole feedback but can travel forward in time.


message 2: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Dawkins is so far up himself he should become a black hole.


message 3: by Velvetink (new)

Velvetink Debbie wrote: "Dawkins is so far up himself he should become a black hole."

that made me laugh way too much!


message 4: by Trevor (new)

Trevor I read this years ago and thought it was ok right up until the bit where he writes that bloody computer program and then spends ages talking about it. Which helps to prove there is nothing more boring than an atheist telling you about the time they got to play god.

I wonder how long it would take Dan Brown to evolve into Pat White? And would he have to evolve through Graham Greene first?


Paul It may be so. This was a funny review to write - it went off on a tack of its own!


message 6: by Trevor (new)

Trevor You'll be glad to know it was also a very funny review to read.


message 7: by Ian (new)

Ian Graye I don't quite understand this review, but I do know a divine creation when I see one.


message 8: by Jonfaith (new)

Jonfaith as Issac Babel quipped to the NKVD, I say to you PB, don't you sleep?


Paul yes, it is pretty early in the morning here!


message 10: by Magdelanye (new)

Magdelanye what I am wondering about is the considerable gap between your reading of this book, and the present.
I'm glad you did, but what made you decide to put this out now?


Manny Okay, you get a vote for the review because it's funny. But this is a great book!


message 12: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul Magdelayne - it was this
- I went out with a pal of mine for a nice Thai meal and a long chat which turned on religion for a long spell - he's a Muslim and he performed his hajj last November. We usually talk politics but last night it was religion
- he thinks it's terrible that I don't believe in anything (he doesn't count "human kindness withing reasonable limits" as a form of belief)
- I woke up at 4 in the morning, this happens to me some times, don't know why, and I thought I'd look at some of my God botheration reviews to find where I explain my particular point of view more exactly that i could do over fish in tamarind sauce and a gallon of white wine
- I didn't really find what i was looking for but in the way this often goes I thought of a couple more jokes and shoved in a picture of a golden tamarin


message 13: by Nandakishore (last edited Jan 22, 2012 06:20am) (new)

Nandakishore Varma "One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent." - H.L.Mencken

Martin Gardner used to quote this.

Your review reminded me of this quote, Paul.

BTW, there are some old ladies in my part of the world who could be called Blind Matchmakers (semi-blind, anyway). They are also slowly becoming extinct.


message 14: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul This could go on - there might be a group of Norwegian market gardeners called the Blond Mulchmakers...

okay I'll stop now!


message 15: by Jude (new)

Jude ok we know I read you in lieu of books, but I don't run around trying to prove you to other people. This one I posted on facebook. Could I have used a semicolon instead of the period & C? Serious question.


message 16: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul Answer : yes.

BTW Manny, I didn't abandon this book because it isn't good, but because of my poorly evolved lobes.


message 17: by Jude (new)

Jude try lead earrings.


message 18: by Alexander (new)

Alexander Arsov Very amusing ranting. I wish you would add the review one day.


back to top