The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

With a topic like evolution / intelligent design, you are bound to get some blind 5 star reviews from people who believe the general idea of evolution without really understanding it, and some blind 1-2 star reviews from people who do not actually WANT to understand it but to find ways to discredit it. Ignore both kinds of review. There's another group of reviewers who might give a lower rating on the premise that the work is not empirical enough or rigorous enough; those people have misunderstood the purpose of this book.

WHAT TO EXPECT
The context and tone of this book are conversational in nature, even if the core ideas are derived from an array of scientific inquiry over the last 150 years. Imagine the author sitting in a coffee shop with you during a bad rain storm (so you've got time), hoping to explain why the main tenets of evolution are important and worth understanding, and why many of the opposing theories are lesser theories from a scientific standpoint, and you will understand the purpose of this book.

It's not hard to see why this work is has been deemed a "classic". Dawkins weaves an interesting and detailed account of the basic principles underlying evolution, including dispelling common misunderstandings like the idea that natural selection is a random process (i.e. conflating genetic mutation — random — with natural selection in favor of specific kinds of mutations — not random). No degrees in molecular biology, genetics, or zoology are required to understand the basic principles described in the book, though you may find that afterward you have a desire to find and order books about these topics (I did). There are also some laugh out-loud passages which I did not expect. While he does at various points veer off-course and ramble a bit (who doesn't), the old saw about babies and bathwater clearly applies (and not much bathwater at that).

In short if the average reader approaches with an open mind, you cannot help but end up with a better understanding of evolution than when you started, regardless of whether or not you personally find every argument made compelling (you're not a bad person if you don't, nor virtuous if you do). We need to learn to debate these things without the toxicity applied.

PERSONAL TAKEAWAYS
While most of the key mechanisms of evolution are known and their effects observable with modern technology (e.g. reading and comparing the genome of two suspected but not obviously related species) and/or through our robust understanding of molecular biology, there are parts of the theory that remain unproven. More specifically, formal proofs of concept of the origins of the first self-replicating cells. This is not unexpected given the time scales involved and the very incomplete fossil record that we have (unfortunately many kinds of things that we would need to study fossils OF, don't actually fossilize when they die). This is also where the typical "God of the Gaps" arguments made by many intelligent design (or ID) supporters originate. Which for many of them amounts to "you can't show me definitive proof today of how certain kinds of cells came into being 4 billion years ago, ergo this entire theory is flawed / false." Which is, on its face, absurd.

If I believe at all in the value of scientific inquiry and thinking, then I must admit that two things are true:
1) there is by now a literal mountain of empirical evidence — in several related scientific fields, ranging from physics to physiology — that points directly to the cellular machinery of what we call "evolution" at work, over very long time scales, in every kind of living thing. To deny the validity of the core parts of evolution, is about as foolish as an educated person choosing to believe that an entire political party is filled with devil-worshipping baby-eaters, despite there being no wide-scale reports of satanic altars and missing babies that we know of;

2) In a wide array of scientific fields, we have scenarios where some parts of a theory are definitively known and proven and others not yet proven (i.e. proven in the same way science has proven than atoms can be split and tornadoes are formed when certain kinds of frontal boundaries collide with one another under specific conditions), and evolution is one of these fields. Admitting that something is unknown is NOT tantamount to admitting it is invalid! : ) There remain problems unsolved / proofs unmade; that is OK. It means we have work to do.

Imagine this conversation between two people (two scientists if you like, no need to make it a scientist and a minister, for example):

"You say we can see from countless optical telescope (and other) observations and crunching of data according to the laws of physics that have been proven valid many thousands of times over, that there is evidence of an unseen type of mass in the universe, that effects everything from the appearance of distant objects in optical telescopes (gravitational lensing) to how galaxies interact, but because you can't show me a visible proof this source of mass exists, I must conclude your entire interconnected theory of solar systems and galaxies and galaxy clusters, and how they interact, is false." Absurd right? That's what many (not all) ID proponents do with evolution (the lack of visible evidence in our example is the analog to the lack of a proven, molecular definition of the first self-replicating cell and its surrounding conditions).

And that leads me to the last point, which is over the last 20 years or so, molecular biologists, molecular engineers, and evolutionary biologists have been generating ever-more-compelling test results in controlled lab conditions, of self-contained, self-replicating cells arising from nothing but simple organic compounds, elemental catalysts, and different forms of energy. They're not there yet, but one by one the technical hurdles are falling; the cells we're capable of generating today are much more robust than when we started 20 years ago. It would be great, therefore, to see Dawkins or perhaps his favored understudy, either re-write portions of this book to include these developments (a lot has happened n biology and genetics since the 90s, including things like systems theory), or write a new book with the same general scope and audience.

I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins and the ideas he advocates. I am also a fan of his style, presentation and ability to deliver complex scientific goodies in simple understandable packages.I just don't feel this book hit the spot.
The digressions are too much (can't stress this enough), the analogies are stretched out, the science is unclear (in comparison with his other works) and his rhetoric unfocused. Arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguments? No thank you.
I find myself asking: is this book really worthy of all the praise it has received? Is it really that good and I just "don't get it"? Or are fans of the book guilty of hero-worship and this book is simply not up to par with the author's other works? The answer is irrelevant to me as the result is the same: this book is of no real value to my library or to me and I personally find it to be very over-rated. I will stick with Richard's other excellent books (my favorite being: The Ancestor's Tale) while this one goes to the "might throw away or give away" pile.

one of dawkins most "hard to read" books. it was a drudgery to finish it.

This is a good review of the current progress in evolutionary biology. The anti-God polemic is mildly distracting. He proves to himself that a clever computer program can emulate the effects of evolution, without ever asking the next question.

Amazing. Dawkins is a treasure. Love all of his books.

This book was enjoyable, but I got somewhat disappointed. While there is little to criticize, it does not live up to the quality of the writing in the Selfish Gene or the Extended Phenotype. It reads like a mainstream, long essay on evolutionary theory, and does not make an effort at offering deep insights. I give it 3.5 stars.

Makes complicated topics accessible. I liked the explanation of the inorganic clay crystals being the ancestor of RNA

The best explanation of evolution I've ever encountered! It can be a little redundant, but that's to make sure the reader gets the process. I highly recommend. The writing is really, really excellent!

I am a fan of Dawkins, an atheist and knows a bit of science. The ideas that Dawkins tries to explains are quite complex even using examples. I confess I could understand maybe 30 % of his ideas. Not readily understandable.

Evolutionary theory is under attack, as are science, truth, and facts. Dawkin’s The Blind Watchmaker is a must read for anyone serious about the facts regarding evolution.