Automotive Deals Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Ruby jewelry Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Review

857 of 982 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Why other people give this book 1 star, September 10, 2001
This review is from: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (Reissued in 2006 and 1996) (Paperback)
Hi, for the un-informed, I'd recommend a search of the phrase "Richard Dawkins" in google.com, which should answer all questions asking if he is a scientist or not.
The book, is an excellent book. I am not an atheist. The reviews with "one" starts have one goal: To prevent you read this book. Because the review writers know - and fear - that people would understand the point of view of Dawkins.
"It is not science". "Evolution Theory is wrong".. These sentences, are nothing but dogmatic claims. Whole books have been written discussing what is science and what is not, and rather comprehensive books have been written to disprove evolution. But as an open-minded person, I'd suggest you to be informed abouth both approaches to the subject, before making an ill-informed judgement about the issue. Don't listen to people who try to prevent you from reaching knowledge.
The book?
Oh, yes... It is excellent, I'm still amazed by his ability to deconstruct complex topics and discuss them in a simple way.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 29, 2007 9:22:47 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2007 8:44:38 PM PDT
Enigma says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2007 3:31:42 AM PST
Steven Forth says:
Typically, this "comment" is a tissue of claims rather than rational arguement supported by evidence. Take for example, the position that "The fossil record was to record gradual change, leaving behind many intermediaries but this is not true at all." I am not sure where Mr. Tooley believes this claim was made. Perhaps he could point this out with a series of direct quotes from a legitimate sources. The first set of quotes would establish his initial claim about gradual change, then he would provide the evidence that gradual change does not characterize the fossil record. Next he would explore the different reasons why this might be the case. And finally, having established a chain of reasoning, he would explore the alternate hypotheses, the evidence for them, their explanatory power, and the new hypotheses that they generate. Oops, actually there is no 'finally' as the new hypotheses would then need to be tested. An example of this approach can be found in The Blind Watchmaker.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 15, 2007 10:35:05 PM PST
Enigma says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2008 6:34:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2008 6:38:35 PM PST
This sort of unsubstantiated assertion by Tooley -- ''so malleable as to be a USELESS hypothesis", "...swept under the rug...", "...furthest off predictors of the fossil record..." -- are precisely the fear-based censorship that Tennenbaum warns about. Dawkins is a remarkably clear and profound thinker who substantiates his ideas with examples and logic. If you wish, you can try to discredit or argue against his logic. Tooley, on the other hand, heaps unsubstantiated criticisms upon each other as if he believes the height of the pile enhances his credibility, a perfect example of fundamentalist/ID/Creationist prose. Tennenbaum is right: this is the type of thinking to fear, not Dawkins'.

Posted on Mar 12, 2008 7:55:15 PM PDT
R. Johnson says:
i'm sorry, but mr. tooley is unfortunately very ill-informed. :( there are tons of transitional fossils and there are TONS of predictions made by extrapolating/interpolating existing fossils that come true. modern biology is based upon evolution. we would not be making any progress in that field (as we have with genetics, medicines, understanding viruses) if we prayed to an intelligent designed instead of used a well founded and proven scientific theory.

it is a load of nonsense and there is no such thing as scientific theology. unfortunately, some people can only think in terms of religion and old men with beards in the sky. the rest of us use evidence, experimentation, and common sense to develop our understanding.

the blind watchmaker is an eye-opening book and extremely trustworthy as a source of understanding evolution and how awe-inspiring it really is. highly recommended.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2008 1:29:12 PM PDT
Enigma says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2008 1:29:28 PM PDT
Enigma says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2008 7:42:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2008 7:44:03 AM PDT
OverTheMoon says:
Darwinian evolution has advanced biology and unified the field. Eveything in biology, from DNA, to the transitional fossils, to OBSERVED SPECIATION continues to verify natural selection.

The only people who claim it does not are creationists and they have nothing of scientific value to offer. They think you can just say a supernatural being is responsible for biology and that's that... and they even go as far to claim that the supernatural being doesn't need to be explained.

For evidence that creaionists are deceptive, just watch PBS NOVA's "Judgement Day" to see what they get up to.

Everything from natural selection to Mendel's laws still stand the test of time today. Just study science in a university and what do you get in biology class... a supernatural being did it? No! You get Darwinian natural selection and Mendel.

The supernatural cause stuff doesn't explain anything. Its the easy way out...

... and imagine these people want us to just say ... oh a supernatural being made the flu viris evolve. lol. Imagine the state of modern medicine if we did it their way. We don't need to image it actually... just study 10th century medicine instead.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2008 10:30:21 PM PDT
Enigma says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›