Talk:The Blind Watchmaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Literature
 Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

From the article:

Both books are intended to popularize the Williams Revolution in the understanding of evolution.

Williams Revolution? What does this mean?

I remember the book as being mainly a refutation of the argument from design, and particularly of Paley's version of the argument(that's where the title comes from). And while it advocates evolution by a long serie of small improvements, and not macromutations, as the main motor of evolution, it's not really about micro-evolution (at least not as defined in wikipedia). susano 05:35 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

I have removed the following because I don't see how the observations, per Davies, are outside the scope of the book:

"It can however be argued that this would be outside the scope of the book, as well as in the realm of physics rather than biology."

Dawkins' does not limit the book to biology: his stated intention is "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence". While he cogently argues that evolution explains complexity, it does not explain our existence. (If he were to argue that evolution explains the origin of the universe and its laws, it would imply an infinite regress...which is hardly an explanation.) To point out that Dawkins makes no mention of this is a valid criticism.--Johnstone 03:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would assume Dawkins, being a biologist, writes "our existence" to mean the existence of humans, or intelligent life forms, or animals, or even just living things? And not the existence of matter and laws of nature? Grant the man a few presuppositions...  ;-) It seems to me absurd to demand that he therefore also explains everything back to the Big Bang and even before that. Mortene 13:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- May we remove the Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow. tag that some joker inserted? --Wetman 10:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be Johnstone, I've removed it. Edward 11:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Davies

In light of the above discussion, I removed the following text:

While he calls this the "deepest of problems," it has been noted that he makes no attempt to explain the origin of matter and energy, space, and time—the material and framework of evolution—nor the origin of physical law—the underlying rules for evolution (for example, see Davies (1992)).

Dawkins' goal is to explain why, given natural law, evolution is not only true but necessary. Therefore, demanding that he now explain natural law is unreasonable. Instead, Davies would have to explain how natural law could be otherwise, and how life might be possible in such circumstances without the benefit of evolution. When he does that, he'll deserve mention in this article. Alienus 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added links to criticisms of Dawkins's blind watchmaker hypothesis

I added links to criticisms of Dawkins's blind watchmaker hypothesis.

Here they are:

ken 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

It is not balanced to include two links by the leading proponent of "Intelligent Design." I have removed all external links. Laurence Boyce 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
For potential future reference: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo *Spark* 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the "Blind Watchmaker Thesis" listed above. Italics are added by me Fred Hsu 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC):

If the blind watchmaker thesis is supported by overwhelming evidence we may have to accept it, like it or not... But should Christian theists do as the atheists do, and support the blind watchmaker thesis on philosophical grounds?... we can learn to convince people whose minds are open to argument that the central claim of Darwinism is neither soundly based in logic nor supported by convincing evidence... Perhaps you have already perceived that the wing scenario assumes a lot, and everything it assumes is very doubtful...

The problem I have with this type of criticism is that criticism is based on faith, not evidence. Real criticism uses research to overturn other people's scientific theories. Fake criticism uses argument from ignorance to cast doubt on other people's ideas without offering its own scientific hypothesis/theories with references which can be independently verified. Fred Hsu 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I made the article less biased and offered criticism of The Blind Watchmaker

Here is what I wrote: Philosopher Dallas Willard criticized Richard Dawkin's work The Blind Watchmaker and called it "metaphysical speculation". [1] ken 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Blind_Watchmaker_730f.html"