Ray Campbell's Reviews > The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Feb 20, 2012

liked it
bookshelves: read-2012
Read from February 20 to 29, 2012

I know more about bats than I really need to know, but this was an interesting read. I was a fan of Stephen J. Gould and have read many of his pieces. I always enjoyed his rants which spanned a range of topics. Dawkins refers to Gould many times in this book reminding me that he was the same kind of scientist, but not the same kind of writer. While Gould would ramble into everything from the correct date of the turn of the century to the panda's thumb, Dawkins is focused on his argument and presenting evidence and logic throughout. If you doubt evolution or "Darwinism", this book will clear it up for you. You may read and still be skeptical, but you'll understand all the angles and arguments. I was not particularly skeptical, but I did hold many of the misconceptions he debunks. Nicely written, but clearly a scholarly argument for not only evolution, but Darwin's brand of evolution. It never occurred to me that even within the world of evolution accepting scientists there were so many subtle variations with which Dawkins could argue. Really, he had me at: cuckoo birds like to lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. To further compound the problem with this practice, cuckoo hatch-lings throw their step siblings out of the nests...

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

Reading Progress

02/22/2012 page 80
22.0% "OK, now that we've covered bats, radar and cuckoo's leaving eggs in the nests of other birds, Dawkins is playing with his computer - I like it."

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

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Karen (new)

Karen Garrison I'm still trying to understand why there are people here who aren't fundamentalists and yet had misconceptions about evolution,as well as not realizing that not all scientists are in exact agreement as to *how* evolution works.

back to top