ما آماردانها فیشر رو برای اولین طرح آزمایش دنیا "چشیدن چای توسط لیدی" و معرفی آزمون فرض می‌شناسیم. داوکینز کتاب دیگر و بسیار مهمی از این آماردان قهار رو به دنیا معرفی کرده که در سال ۱۹۳۰ نوشته شده و از نظر احتمالاتی، انتخاب طبیعی رو توجیه میکنه.

There’s a certain kind of appreciation that comes from watching someone who is highly skilled in their field whether it’s a musician, sports figure, surgeon or dancer. This is also the same feeling I get when reading a book by Richard Dawkins with regards to his ability to communicate complex scientific topics using clever analogies in a way that crystallizes the subject matter. He is such a good science communicator that I’ll often gain new insight about a topic I thought I already knew from his writing.

In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins examines the evidence for ‘design’ in nature using examples such as the human eye, the echo-location abilities of bats, the absurdly long tail of widowbirds and others. He then goes on to show how step-by-step changes over long periods of time caused by genetic mutation coupled with the non-random effects of natural selection can produce animals that are remarkably well suited for their environment in the absence of a conscious designer. Along the way he obliterates ill-informed creationist tropes such as:
- That certain adaptions are irreducibly complex. For example, that the eye wouldn’t work without multiple parts (iris, lens, rods, cones, the optic nerve and the parts of the brain that interpret electrical signals) evolving and cooperating in tandem.
- Hoyle’s argument that the probability of complex life evolving is “comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein”.
- If you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it “spontaneously assembled” itself from the sand and rocks or that it was designed? This also the fallacy from which the books title originated.

Each amounts to an argument from incredulity coupled with a paucity of imagination (I can’t imagine how such a thing could happen, therefore god did it). Of course, there are well established scientific answers to each of these objections that can be obtained by reading this book, or through a simple google search. It should be noted, that despite being wrong, and wrong again, creationists continue to push for their ideologically driven views to be taught in public schools alongside evolution despite the fact that they have yet to publish a single peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal.

Dawkins also takes aim at the theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and hyped by the authors and the press as a radical departure from established evolutionary theory. Instead he shows how it merely represents a "minor gloss," and an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory".

While it’s always nice to see creationist ideas so utterly destroyed, it’s the facts of evolution itself that makes the book so interesting. Incremental changes over long periods of time coupled with natural selection produces “endless forms most beautiful” and endless fascination for a curious mind.

Dawkins is one of my top picks for the most articulate, engaging and proficient scientists I've read to date. The Blind Watchmaker turned out to be a very prolific piece. I was baffled by his logical analogies, most excellent examples and extremely engaging vernacular.
In this work, one learns much about the evolutionary adaptations of numerous species, of which the sonar technology of baths, dolphins and other mammals seemed most shocking.
His reasoning of what constitutes miracles, probability theory and reasoning behind the drawback of the Lamark's theory of acquired characteristics is exceptionally enticing. The book should be a required high-school reading.

A very, very high recommendation.

Took me forever because it was long and boring at the beginning but my FOMO paid off again and it got more interesting as it got to the halfway point and discussed different views and debates inside Darwinian evolution. Needed tighter editing and should have been cut dramatically, but still ended somewhat abruptly.

2.5 stars - Solid enough science, of course, even if it's 20+ years out of date (I'm commenting on the 1996 edition) but it's overlong and downright tedious at times.

Which is no excuse not to read it. Dawkins expertly makes the case for evolution though the people who refuse to accept it are, generally speaking, not the type to be swayed by evidence and logic and not the audience for this book.

Amazing book, such a great read I enjoyed it so much. The majority of chapters were extremely interesting, explaining how complex design emerges from simplicity through cumulative selection. Great probabilistic-based arguments on how Darwinism, through a combination of 'random' mutation and cumulative selection is the only way complex organs/designs/beings could exist in nature. Didn't give it 5 stars because I felt one or two chapters went into specific areas that weren't 100% required for the message of the book, but that's just my opinion! Highly recommend it and can't wait to read another of his books.

One of the best and most understandable arguments for evolutionary theory and natural selection

Please note that I put the original German text at the end of this review. Just if you might be interested.

In the spirit of Darwin, Dawkins argues soundly, comprehensively, in this form of a non-fiction book rhetorically above average and merely correct. In contrast to his later work "The God Delusion," which is so full of polemics, he refrains from doing so. He endeavors to provide factual and scientifically sound reasoning.
Thus he celebrates the breathtaking emergence of highly sophisticated systems such as the human body with the apparent enthusiasm of an evolutionary biologist, who burns for his profession and also does not hesitate to lead various theses against the theory of evolution in the field. Mind you only around, to feed his lines, then enjoyable to dismantle piece by piece and to intone on their ruins a song of praise to the fantastic, developmental severe history of life.
Ironically, the title of the work also refers to a book by the creationist pioneer William Paley, who wanted to use God in the form of a watchmaker to depict the "production" of all worldly components. Understandably, Dawkins could not resist alienating this clear image of his natural adversary for his purposes and turning the chronograph maker into an unconscious, a meaningless and blind metaphor for natural selection. As an illustration, object to be drawn through the book, the human eye was chosen. Its origins, shapes, and history of development make the reader pause in astonishment with fascinating insights into out of which amazing creatures our windows to the world have watched world eons of years ago.
As long as Dawkins lingers in his field of study, the soundness of his lines of reasoning can hardly be counteracted, and until nowadays, this literature, which was published in 1986, cannot be compared with the writing of equal value.
Unfortunately, an inappropriate and meanwhile more than obsolete attempt to show a kind of evolution based on the development of computer technology is to be found among the examples. This is a well-intentioned approach, to make the own theses seem even more comprehensive and to use artificial adaptations in as many subjects as possible to provide evidence. However, as in this case, it inevitably fails because of the dry basis and comprehensibility of the theses, which are too constructed and, funny enough, very much reminiscent of the custom of religious fanatics. These try to bend over and put a concept on everything.
Also, the all specific too, rather short inserts on medicine and genetics are correct, but in contrast to the rest of the book exhausting to read. One notices that the actual primary operating field is left shortly.
In general, the work would do a small renovation in the direction of the current state of research very well, so that the critical minds of the 21st century to have both well-founded and current reasoning for the hopefully eventually ended, meaningless dispute with ignorant people. Despite the small points of criticism an epochal work that seeks its equal in its timeless correctness and the significant, underlying concerns of the Enlightenment. It testifies to the enthusiasm to which professional occupation with the miracle of the creation of life can become.
A fortunate coincidence, too, when this gift falls into the hands of a talented narrative man whose tactical acumen dictates that he should not encourage the prevention of water on the mills of his opponents. By withdrawing any basis of existence on a purely factual basis of any religious embarrassment, creation myth, and Genesis. Now the hard facts only have to flow into the consciousness of the people. Dropwise and very slowly. Sticky droplets.

Eine der besten und verständlichsten Argumentationsführungen für Evolutionstheorie und natürliche Selektion

Ganz im Sinne Darwins argumentiert Dawkins stichhaltig, umfassend, in dieser Form für ein Sachbuch rhetorisch überdurchschnittlich gut und schlichtweg richtig. Er hält sich dabei im Gegensatz zu seinem späteren Werk Gotteswahn, das vor Polemik nur so strotzt, zurück. Er ist bemüht, eine sachliche und wissenschaftlich fundierte Argumentation abzuliefern. So feiert er die die atemberaubende Entstehung höchst diffiziler Systeme wie dem menschlichen Körper mit der spürbaren Begeisterung eines Evolutionsbiologen, der für sein Metier brennt und auch nicht davor zurückschreckt, verschiedenste Thesen gegen die Evolutionstheorie ins Feld zu führen. Wohlgemerkt nur um, sich selbst geschickt den Ball zuspielend, sie anschließend genussvoll Stück für Stück zu demontieren und auf ihren Trümmern ein Loblied auf die erstaunliche, seriöse Entwicklungsgeschichte des Lebens anzustimmen.
Ironisch ist auch der Titel des Werks zu verstehen, der sich auf ein Buch des kreationistischen Vordenkers William Paley bezieht, der anhand Gottes in Form eines Uhrmachers die „Fertigung“ sämtlicher weltlicher Bestandteile darstellen wollte. Verständlich, dass Dawkins nicht widerstehen konnte, dieses krasse Bild seines natürlichen Gegners für eigene Zwecke zu entfremden und aus dem Chronographenhersteller eine unbewusst, ohne Sinn und blind arbeitende Metapher für die natürliche Selektion zu machen.
Als ein sich durch das Buch ziehendes Veranschaulichungsobjekt wurde das menschliche Auge gewählt. Dessen Ursprung, Formen und Entwicklungsgeschichte lassen mit den faszinierenden Erkenntnissen, aus welch unerwarteten Kreaturen unsere Fenster zur Welt vor Äonen von Jahren geblickt haben, den Leser vor Erstaunen innehalten.
Solange Dawkins in seinem Fachbereich verweilt ist der Stichhaltigkeit seiner Argumentationsketten kaum etwas entgegenzusetzen und man kann diesem 1986 erschienen Werk bis heute wenig gleichwertige Literatur zur Seite stellen. Leider ist auch ein unpassender und mittlerweile mehr als nur veralteter Versuch, anhand der Entwicklung der Computertechnik eine Art von Evolution aufzeigen zu wollen, unter den Beispielen. Das ist ein gut gemeinter Ansatz, die eigenen Thesen noch umfassender erscheinen zu lassen und künstliche Adaptionen in möglichst vielen Themenkreisen zur Erbringung von Belegen heranzuziehen. Es scheitert aber, wie in diesem Fall, zwangsläufig an der unzureichenden Basis und Nachvollziehbarkeit der Thesen, die allzu konstruiert sind und lustigerweise sehr an den Usus der religiösen Fanatiker erinnern. Diese versuchen auch auf Biegen und Brechen ein Konzept über alles zu stülpen.
Auch sind die allzu fachspezifisch ausgeführten, eher kurzen Einschübe über Medizin und Genetik zwar richtig, aber im Kontrast zum Rest des Buches anstrengend zu lesen. Man merkt, dass das eigentliche Hauptbetätigungsfeld kurzfristig verlassen wird.
Generell täte dem Werk eine kleine Renovierung in Richtung des aktuellen Standes der Forschung sehr gut, damit auch die kritischen Geister des 21. Jahrhunderts sowohl wohlfundierte als auch aktuelle Argumentationen für den hoffentlich irgendwann beendeten, sinnbefreiten Disput mit ignoranten Mitmenschen haben.
Trotz der kleinen Kritikpunkte eine epochales Werk, dass in seiner zeitlosen Richtigkeit und dem hehren, dahinterstehenden Anliegen der Aufklärung seinesgleichen sucht. Es zeugt von der Begeisterungsfähigkeit, zu der die berufliche Beschäftigung mit dem Wunder der Entstehung des Lebens werden kann.
Ein glücklicher Zufall auch, wenn diese Gabe in die Hände eines noch dazu erzählerisch talentierten Mannes fällt, dessen taktischer Scharfsinn ihm gebietet, der Prävention des Wassers auf die Mühlen seiner Gegner keinen Vorschub zu leisten. Indem er auf einer rein sachlichen Basis jeglicher Art von religiöser Verbrämung, Schöpfungsmythos und Entstehungsmären jegliche Existenzgrundlage entzieht. Jetzt müssen die harten Fakten nur noch ins Bewusstsein der Menschen einfließen. Tröpfchenweise und sehr langsam. Klebrige Tröpfchen.

I never really knew what evolution is till I read this book. Dawkins is great at explaining difficult concepts - making things as simple as possible, but no simpler. And his love and commitment for science is shown through his freely flowing, almost musical, prose. I loved this book. It has expanded my horizons.

کتاب هدیه عزیزی بود. کتاب خوبی بود. هر چند من متقاعد نشدم. چندین نکته برای کسانی که می‌خواهند کتاب را بخوانند:
- برای این که این کتاب را درک کنید و برایتان خسته کننده نباشد باید حتما مقداری زیست شناسی خوانده باشید. در صورتی که زیست شناسی نخوانده‌اید و با مفاهیم آن آشنایی ندارید اگر این کتاب را نخوانید بهتر است. (البته این نظر شخصی من است).
- من از ترجمه دکتر بهزاد و خانم باقری خیلی راضی نبودم و فکر می کنم این کتاب به ترجمه بهتری نیاز دارد.
- متاسفانه تا حدودی غلط‌های املایی و نگارشی زیاد داشت.

Dawkins’ love of nature in all its deepest and strangest permutations is undeniable. The book reads more like a love letter to the beautiful autonomy of mother nature rather than as a philosophical defeater of speciated creationism. The author evinces an informal, self-deprecating voice that gives the impression of a lifelong exploration of the beauty of naturalism. Far more personal than I expected, there are many stories related, such as passages delving into his childhood in Africa beholding driver ant colonies.

Throughout the book, Dawkins explores various strains of causation and implication from classical material Darwinism. The conceit of the entire novel is that the appearance of design is merely illusory and the secret and beautiful nature of biology is that material, unintelligent causes can produce life, particularly intelligent and conscious beings. Dawkins primarily offers biological metaphors as the main vehicle of evidence for the theory of universal common descent. The author employs mathematics, computation, and probability in a persuasive yet contentious manner to prove that cumulative natural selection is the primary mechanism responsible for all biological existence.

I was surprised by the prominent presence of many analogies starring computer jargon. Dawkin’s prescient digital optimism is consistently employed in arguments about genetics and information theory. I get the sense that his passion for the early home computer revolution is similar in nature to his passion for zoology. Although his passion is infectious – one can easily see how millions of readers have come away with a renewed sense of wonder and commitment to the practical sciences – his metaphors lack a strictly logical punch that I would have otherwise expected.

Dawkins’ tone is otherwise combative and confident: the book is filled with phrases such as “those that belong to the half of the educated population” (p99). Dawkins' approach to philosophical disciplines, such as metaphysics, cosmology, and teleology, come across as quite cavalier and border on reckless or misrepresentative: “Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” (p139). The concept of miracles is rendered so crudely as to be a legitimately unhelpful term of analysis: “A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising” (p158). One comes away with the criticism shared by Michael Ruse that Dawkins’ work simply lacks a fundamental layer of philosophical education.

The book generally argues for both atheism and a philosophy of secular humanism derived from materialist Darwinism. He engages with several of the weaker arguments either for a creator or against evolution. He spends particular time demolishing the subjective argumentation from personal incredulity, but fails to engage with many of the strongest existing arguments. In his conversation about the human eye in chapter four, he does not deeply interact with the concept of irreducible complexity in producing an organ that transmits survival value. Light sensitivity by itself requires a complex interaction. He simply assumes without justification that parts of an eye can function and produce value step by step. “Anti-evolution” arguments are always “propaganda” evincing an explicitly political motivation, never given consideration as genuine scientific evidence or as critical criticism from academic peers.

Dawkins makes his metaphysical presumptions clear from the beginning, although he acts as if such assumptions are a priori epistemically sound and evident to all. More often than not, the author’s religious beliefs concerning agnosticism and atheism are consistently present in his supposedly scientific argumentation. Over the course of his book, he assumes several characteristics of God, the ‘seeing’ watchmaker. If such a designer had vision, Dawkins argues, there is no possible way that they would design a species in such a manner or using such-and-such parts: “Its very imperfection is powerful testimony of its ancient history, a history of step-by-step change rather than of deliberate design. No sensible designer would have conceived such a monstrosity if given a free hand to create a flatfish on a clean drawing board.” (p97)

From the beginning to the end of the book, it becomes obvious that Dawkins’ scientific propositions are almost exclusively posited on particular religious counterpositions. Dawkins seems to take particular affront with the possibility that God might reuse or build upon existing designs. He never considers the potential motivations of such a creator, working within the boundaries of our created physical and chemical self-restraints, yet regards such considerations of opponent creationists to be the highest flights of fancy imaginable.

It is clear that Dawkin’s repackaging of classical material Darwinism contains specific theological presumptions and rationalizations, clearly demonstrating the religious nature at the core of the theory – a conclusion the author would no doubt find offensive. In Dawkins’ overall purpose in writing The Blind Watchmaker, namely that a designer is not necessary to explain life, I strictly agree. Depending on one’s philosophical presumptions and scientific standards, enough evidence always exists to deny the Creator. On the Christian worldview, this is in fact a purposeful feature: God is sufficiently distanced and hidden from us creatures such that we have epistemic freedom to deny Him. He allows us the prideful freedom to find him unnecessary in our lives and explanations.

Yet, if Darwinism is true, if there is no designer, and if abiogenesis and human consciousness were merely a chance of immense improbability, then there doesn’t appear to be the logical possibility of freedom of the will. If nature is only blind forces working on inanimate matter, producing unintended outcomes, then these physical systems are, by definition, rigidly determined by natural law. Given Darwinism, a lack of free will, the apparent impossibility of transcendent morality, the lack of qualitative difference between humans and animals, and the conspicuous absence of a genuine metaphysical purpose for life, what does it matter if Darwinism is true?

Excelente para entender de mejor forma en qué consiste realmente la teoría de la evolución por selección natural y por qué no tiene realmente teorías rivales, sino intentos de antagonismo que resultan usando sus mismos elementos. No busca Dawkins explicar en últimas preguntas como "¿por qué existimos?", sino el por qué el azar o la evolución en una sola etapa no tiene cabida en la naturaleza como la conocemos. Un ser humano, un tigre, un elefante, un árbol, no pueden aparecer de la nada, sino que siguen un camino lógico y muy prolongado, muy bien explicado en este libro. Recomendado.

صادقانه اگه بخواهم بگم چیزی از این کتاب متوجه نشدم
ولی شاید این نکته دلیلی بر بد بودن کتاب نباشد .