September 09, 2009
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
From The Guardian:
If Thomas Henry Huxley was famously "Darwin's bulldog", then Richard Dawkins is probably best described as "Darwin's pit bull". He gets his teeth into an argument, locks on and shakes it until submission is the only option. There's a certain glee when he admits to being "the devil's disciple" or the high priest of "ultradarwinism", and his admission has an undeniably macho swagger about it. Real men (and women) take the toughest line on natural selection. Suffering and pain in nature and humanity are merely there to service the genes. Anything else is "Sentimental, human nonsense. Natural selection is all futile." There is something bracing about belonging to this most astringent and clear-sighted set. Deluded theists! Wishy-washy agnostics! Welcome to the Fight Club. One is reminded of lines by Dawkins's favourite poet, WB Yeats: "Cast a cold eye / On life, on death. / Horseman, pass by."
The greatest story is, of course, the story of evolution. This latest addition to the Dawkins canon is his summary of the vast array of evidence supporting the science. Palaeontology, embryology, anatomy, genetics, artificial breeding and geography are all grist to his evolutionary mill. Dawkins's writing demonstrates once again his consummate skill as an explainer. He never makes assumptions about prior knowledge; when he chooses an analogy it does actually cast light on the thing to be explained (some scientists seem to find this extraordinarily difficult); and occasionally he coins a brilliant phrase. Those who have already climbed Mount Improbable with him or contemplated the blind watchmaker will not be disappointed, even though some of the same ground has been re-ploughed for a new crop.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:20 AM | Permalink



















Comments
For those who will say that Dawkins just doesn't understand religion with it's wonderful depth andhistory, I will repost this:
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
--PZ
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 9, 2009 9:09:17 PM
Pro Forma
Still to be explained is the parallel growth in printed copies of Dawkins screeds and new recruits to the anti-darwinists, both here and in England.
Posted by: Carlos | Sep 9, 2009 10:59:34 PM
Woe unto him that closeth not his tags.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 9, 2009 11:23:27 PM
Italics must go.
Victory is mine.
Posted by: D | Sep 10, 2009 2:05:52 AM
bah
Posted by: D | Sep 10, 2009 2:06:21 AM
Italics of doom
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 10, 2009 3:43:19 AM
Try again.
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 10, 2009 3:45:28 AM
Win! In general, the problem comes from writing the closing tag </i> as an opening tag <i>, thus needing two closing tags. Also watch out for <em>.
In the future, comment with this: </i></i></em></em>.
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 10, 2009 3:49:12 AM
Post a comment