Sunday, November 1, 2009 | Science : TGSOE | print version

Print | Comments |

'The Greatest Show on Earth'

by David Perlman - San Francisco Chronicle

CLICK HERE to see more about Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/30/RVO31A8NU9.DTL&type=science

Richard Dawkins, who recently retired from the Oxford University faculty, is a canny, funny and beguiling biologist.

Like a detective reconstructing a crime, he gives us dozens upon dozens of clues from the fossil record and from today's genetics laboratories to persuade us all that evolution is indeed real and that the process has in fact made us all relatives, however distant, of everything else alive.

This lavishly illustrated and detailed tribute to Charles Darwin, however well written, will probably not convince creationists nor convert believers in intelligent design. Those folks, he maintains, are "history deniers," and beyond redemption.

This is Dawkins' 10th book and arguably his best since "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker." Most recently he vented his anger with a splenetic defense of atheism in "The God Delusion," but now he has largely avoided rancor and has laid out the most striking evidence with such fascinating detail that the book is both scientifically exciting and completely convincing.

Nor is the professor unaware that some religious readers who accept the evidence may still have doubts, and Dawkins restrains his militant atheism long enough to cite both the archbishop of Canterbury and the pope as among evolution's backers.
...
Continue reading
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/30/RVO31A8NU9.DTL&type=science

Posted: Sunday, November 1, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #428731 by Jos Gibbons on November 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm

tribute to Charles Darwin

Fail.

Those folks, he maintains, are "history deniers," and beyond redemption. (Also, why the inverted commas? They are literally history deniers.)

He never said they're beyond change, "redemption" or otherwise. He frequently points out ignorance is no crime.

splenetic defense of atheism

Proof? He certainly didn't intend it as angry, but rather as some combination of funny (however successful he may or may not have been in that) and inspiring for the closeted. Why do these people always use fancy words like splenetic? To show off? When you're quite finished with your character assassination, DP, maybe you could review TGSOE. You're putting people off it more than RD ever would.

restrains his militant atheism long enough

Whether his atheism is "militant" or not, he avoids it all the way through TGSOE, rather than restraining for a brief while.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

2. Comment #428733 by SaintStephen on November 1, 2009 at 6:06 pm

No frown formed upon my face after finishing this fluff... therefore I will refrain from fomenting further frustration.

(Foul. Flatulent alliteration. Score minus five.)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

3. Comment #428736 by the great teapot on November 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm

"Nor is the professor unaware that some religious readers who accept the evidence may still have doubts"

Yes but what do they doubt?

Other Comments by the great teapot

4. Comment #428743 by Corylus on November 1, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Publication of "The Greatest Show" just missed the powerful evidence of Ardipithecus ramidus - "Ardi" - a million years older than "Lucy" and at 4.2 million years old is the earliest hominid yet discovered. A female biped, her discovery was reported Oct. 9 by a team of anthropologists led by UC Berkeley's Tim D. White, and Dawkins would have loved her.

This raises an interesting point. I recall reading Richard thanking his publishers for letting him put new research into his book at the last minute.

It strikes me that TGSOE (along with the other books on evolution just out) will need updating more quickly than books in other fields will. However, new editions are generally released after an extended period.

It might be nice if Richard (maybe jointly with the other authors?) could do an article along the lines of...

"extra stuff that has happened/been discovered this year - that I would have put in my book if I have known at the time."

...released on a significant date (Feb 12th?) and published somewhere prominent. This would re-reinforce the point that there is plenty of evidence.

Just a thought.

Other Comments by Corylus

5. Comment #428744 by palaeodave on November 1, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Lighten up. It was a positive review and he didn't once use the word strident.

Other Comments by palaeodave

6. Comment #428856 by hanoidan on November 2, 2009 at 5:16 am

Yes, it was a positive review of TGSOE, but anything on RD's well-known atheism was at best gratuitous and mostly pejorative or loaded. "History deniers" in quotes suggests RD never actually used the phrase - I don't know whether he did, but I doubt it. And "beyond redemption" suggests that atheism judges people or that RD considers some people to be in that position, I doubt RD does, as atheism as I understand it makes no such judgement about others, it simply asks that hypotheses that others take on faith, whatever that is, be tested. A phrase like "will never accept they are persuadable by the power of an argument" would surely have better summed up RD's position.

But worst of all, the reference to "militant atheism" is a gross misrepresentation of his views, unless balanced with "hardline christians like..." before referencing "the archbishop of canterbury and the pope". But the media only ever uses "militant" in describing religious leaders views if they are associated with violence. Why not apply the same criteria to atheists? I don't think RD backed up his atheism with guns and advocating suicide bombings last time I checked. He's presented evidence and argument for his atheism: why is that militant when appeals to faith by the AB of C and the pope for their positions are not?

Other Comments by hanoidan

7. Comment #428861 by SmilingAtheist on November 2, 2009 at 5:38 am

I couldn't be bothered reading the review as the introduction put me off which is the problem of the review even if it's a positive one. Attacking the author at the front end never encourages me to read a review and I'm sure it will put off others.

To comment 6, Richard uses 'history deniers' in the book and has in several interviews about the book. He relates evolution deniers to holocaust deniers as both being 'history deniers'.

I think it's a great analogy to be honest.

Every review and interview that Richard has done or gets is always equated back to The God Delusion. It seems that people forget that Richard is a scientist and is also a science writer. It also irritates me that they either purposely or by accident seem to equate evolution with atheism turning evolution into a religious debate, which we all know it isn't, evolution is science.

If I was Richard I'd be overly frustrated with the whole thing myself but I guess it was inevitable since The God Delusion was first. I just wish people would stick to reviewing the book and stop commenting about Richard.

Other Comments by SmilingAtheist

8. Comment #428865 by mahdatonta on November 2, 2009 at 6:34 am

To all the nit-pickers. This excellent review of TGSOE should result in many more readers. I've ordered the book for the public library hoping many high school students will discover it for years to come. ISTM, many posters on this site will never be satisfied. Always looking for details about which to bitch.

Other Comments by mahdatonta

9. Comment #428895 by Ygern on November 2, 2009 at 12:06 pm

The review gets better after its opening volley, but the fact that the reviewer chooses to use the word "splenetic" shows that he either is really proud of being able to use the word in a sentence or really didn't "get" the generally humorous tone of TGD.

While he's certainly entitled to his opinion, readers of this site are certainly entitled to disagree with his need to get a little bit of gentle "militant" atheist battering in.

Other Comments by Ygern

10. Comment #429274 by Mitch Kahle on November 3, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Dawkins restrains his militant atheism...

Just how many people has Richard actually injured or killed with his "militant" atheism?

I've read nearly all of RD's books and listened to many of his lectures, a few in person. In all this time, I've never encountered any "militant" language or behavior.

Just where do these writers get this poppycock?

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

11. Comment #429358 by sxedmonds on November 4, 2009 at 2:12 am

"militant atheism", 5:20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch£v=VxGMqKCcN6A

Other Comments by sxedmonds

12. Comment #429599 by Mitch Kahle on November 5, 2009 at 1:22 am

@sxedmonds

Doesn't appear to exist.

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

13. Comment #429757 by sxedmonds on November 5, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector#p/search/0/VxGMqKCcN6A

at 5:20.

Other Comments by sxedmonds

14. Comment #429984 by quaredunt on November 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Let's face it - evolution teaching is militant atheism, not in the guns and bombs sense of course, but RD even acknowledges it in that TED conference speech he did a while back (in an ironic way). I, for one, (one of the "hard-of-thinking") can't imagine wanting to read his books unless I sensed some of that spleen that he so joyously vents! It adds a certain flavour to the necessary exposition. If he didn't piss people off, his books would be bland text books that only the elite would read. He's fighting the good fight! I watched a documentary on Darwin last night and saw the wild physical and mental turmoil he went through as he developed his theory over many years. Why should the reading public, harbouring our pale, apathetic, theistic doubts, be spared some serious shit-disturbing? Good on ye, Richard! Blast away!
Sorry about all the bodily function stuff here but no glory without guts.

Other Comments by quaredunt

Reload Comments | Back to Top