The Greatest Show On Earth

Tim Robbins

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that his profession is in evolutionary biology? I would think that Evolution is a fairly logical topic for an evolutionary biologist to write about. He could write about other topics but is probably sensible enough to not write outside of his area of expertise for want of avoiding looking foolish.

Flipping heck.
Saying anything critical of Mr. Dawkins is a kin to saying something critical of Mr. Jesus in our neighbours forum.

sink

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Flipping heck.
Saying anything critical of Mr. Dawkins is a kin to saying something critical of Mr. Jesus in our neighbours forum.

Not really, I don't share Mr. Dawkins views on religion (by that I mean his views on the organised practice of religion), which I have written several posts on before. Out of the books of his that I have read I would rate 'The God Delusion' at the very bottom. He is at his best when writing within his area of expertise 'Evolution' and to criticise him for only writing about a topic on which he is an expert and has some talent for putting across in a simple to understand manner seems to me to be silly.

Galvasean

Under a tenner you say? Is that hardbac or softback?

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Under a tenner you say? Is that hardbac or softback?

Paperback.

darjeeling

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that his profession is in evolutionary biology? I would think that Evolution is a fairly logical topic for an evolutionary biologist to write about. He could write about other topics but is probably sensible enough to not write outside of his area of expertise for want of avoiding looking foolish.

Yes, indeed. At least Dawkins hasn't made the same career choice as Matt Ridley, the highly reputed author of popular science books such as 'The Red Queen' and 'Genome' who later ventured outside his chosen field to become the ill-starred chairman of Northern Rock.

marco_polo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's also a name for people who have to keep reading about the same thing which forms their world view :-)
.

You're not suggesting we should consider the alternatives?

I have read a few of his books already. Including 'The Ancestors Tale' which took a jolly while.

I am just wondering is this just more belief massaging for the Dawkins' brigade.

Have a read of the preface next time you are in town, I think he explains his reasons for writing the book pretty well. Basically his point is that none of his books have discussed the actual evidence for evolution, but begin on the premise of it being true.

It is almost like he was trying to preempt your question .

Galvasean

It is a good idea for a book. I've read a few books on evolution, but as Marco said, none of them went into great detail on the actual evidence which proves it to be true. This oversight (assuming everyone believes in evolution and therefore not going out of the way to prove it) may have contributed to the rise of Creationism.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Flipping heck.
Saying anything critical of Mr. Dawkins is a kin to saying something critical of Mr. Jesus in our neighbours forum.

What the hell is this crappy reaction? He made an absolutely relevant point. Criticising an evolutionary biologist for writing too much about evolution is pretty stupid. What are you expecting, "Dawkins Dabbles in Diving: Atheism under the sea"?

bnt

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Flipping heck.
Saying anything critical of Mr. Dawkins is a kin to saying something critical of Mr. Jesus in our neighbours forum.

It's not that you were critical, it's that you were wrong. If you want some justified criticism of Dawkins, there's plenty to go around. For example, he's said things that were totally uncalled-for, such as personal remarks about that flight attendant who wore a crucifix to work. I'm not going to buy his new book sight-unseen, I want to have a look at it first.

Dawkins writes some good books, but he's no leader - which is just fine with me, since I'm no follower. Is that the only kind of relationship the religious understand? Gods and subjects, messiahs and apostles, clergy and laity ... shepherds and sheep?

Tim Robbins

marco_polo wrote: »

You're not suggesting we should consider the alternatives?

I think there's been a range of contemporary intellectuals who have written some very good books in our time.

Peter Singer and Allan De Botton's books are usually very good and I think people who like an intellectual / rational world view would enjoy them.

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote: »

What the hell is this crappy reaction? He made an absolutely relevant point. Criticising an evolutionary biologist for writing too much about evolution is pretty stupid. What are you expecting, "Dawkins Dabbles in Diving: Atheism under the sea"?

I think you'd find most techincal / science writers usually write about a broader range of the sciences, than what must be about 5,000 pages about the same thing.

Even, William Reville writes about many different things.
Imagine if Simon Singh just kept writing books on Fermat's last theorm?
We'd surely be entitled to point out the element of monotony.

I would have thought someone of Dawkins writing ability would have liked the challenge of writing about something different. I'm surprised he hasn't.

The Mad Hatter

Tim: Firstly, evolution (and biology generally, though there's very little difference) is a massive field, far bigger than Fermat's Last Theorem.

Secondly, as has been pointed out to you, he makes his reasons for writing the book perfectly clear in the preface, vis. that all of his other books have assumed that evolution is true as a starting point and worked from there, where this one instead presents the case for evolution and shows us what the evidence is - particularly useful for laymen such as myself.

Thirdly, just for the record, he does explain some aspects of geology and chemistry very well in the book, too.

Tim Robbins

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Tim: Firstly, evolution (and biology generally, though there's very little difference) is a massive field, far bigger than Fermat's Last Theorem.

Secondly, as has been pointed out to you, he makes his reasons for writing the book perfectly clear in the preface, vis. that all of his other books have assumed that evolution is true as a starting point and worked from there, where this one instead presents the case for evolution and shows us what the evidence is - particularly useful for laymen such as myself.

Thirdly, just for the record, he does explain some aspects of geology and chemistry very well in the book, too.

Perhaps. I think he's just playing to his market niche. And I'd question anyone who has read 4 evolutionary of his books already if they'll learn anything of substance new.

Some people think John Grisham's books are all different, even if you just read the preface. However, after a few of them, there's a stenching element of monotony and unoriginality.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps. I think he's just playing to his market niche. And I'd question anyone who has read 4 evolutionary of his books already if they'll learn anything of substance new.

This book I suspect is primarily aimed at those who haven't read his previous offerings. Or, like me, those that might have, but need a refresher.

Since he last wrote about evolution he's become aware of all the creationist and intelligent design bullsh*t, and how it's starting to affect real lives. As outlined in the first few pages, this book (to coincide with Darwin's 200th) is to set out the case once-and-for-all, in layman's terms why evolution is fact.

I guess he hopes to swing a few sceptics, and more importantly grab those who are just unaware of the whole tussle before some religious nut does.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

This book I suspect is primarily aimed at those who haven't read his previous offerings. Or, like me, those that might have, but need a refresher.

Since he last wrote about evolution he's become aware of all the creationist and intelligent design bullsh*t, and how it's starting to affect real lives. As outlined in the first few pages, this book (to coincide with Darwin's 200th) is to set out the case once-and-for-all, in layman's terms why evolution is fact.

I guess he hopes to swing a few sceptics, and more importantly grab those who are just unaware of the whole tussle before some religious nut does.

He loves making out there's a quasi-war with creationists alright. In fairness, it's hillarious when it's on tv but I think I find it a bit tiring reading about it again and again. If the creationists really hates science they'd never go to the Dr. but they do. They are just a bit stupid. Is it fair to expect 100% of the population to be able to think logically? It's seems much more probable that a large percentage of the population just won't have the genes to think logically. Dawkins, ironically, more than anyone should know that.

It's interesting to see how other eminent biologists approach this issue. Sean B. Carroll for example doesn't seem to engage in it the same way Dawkins does.

I think Dawkins loves whooping it up and and having some controversy which I have to say makes some great television but probably makes those he opposes even more strident then they already are.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think Dawkins loves whooping it up and and having some controversy which I have to say makes some great television but probably makes those he opposes even more strident then they already are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If the creationists really hates science they'd never go to the Dr. but they do. They are just a bit stupid. Is it fair to expect 100% of the population to be able to think logically?

I guess he's trying to stop stupid people 'educating' those who have never, for whatever reason, thought about the whole thing. To that end he's tried to produce the definitive book that anyone can read to counter the bullsh*t.

And all the better he uses his reputation to drum up a bit of publicity. Apathy breeds ignorance. Maybe a new bunch of people will now laugh and point at creationists in the street, where before they might have stopped to listen.

Zillah

pH wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

That was great. I really want to find the full thing now. Tyson recently became my new favourite scientist.

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

That was great. I really want to find the full thing now. Tyson recently became my new favourite scientist.

Yeah, the way he debunks some things is class *cough* Mayan Calendar *cough*

I also prefer the way he respects people alot more:)

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

I guess he's trying to stop stupid people 'educating' those who have never, for whatever reason, thought about the whole thing.

I've talked to a few otherwise sensible people who were under the impression that there's some kind of controversy over evolution. They used the "it's a theory" line

Zillah

Malty_T wrote: »

I also prefer the way he respects people alot more:)

Well no not that part, but he is very very clever. And funny. Dawkins aint funny. Except in that video.

eightyfish

Just bought it in Waterstones Jervis for €16.99. Wich I'd seen this thread first. Ended up going for the 3 for 2 and all.

Tyler MacDurden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-QWv_0Mjq0

A brief synopsis of the motivation behind its inception:

"The Greatest Show on Earth" comes at a critical time: systematic opposition to the fact of evolution is now flourishing as never before, especially in America. In Britain and elsewhere in the world, teachers witness insidious attempts to undermine the status of science in their classrooms. Richard Dawkins provides unequivocal evidence that boldly and comprehensively rebuts such nonsense. At the same time he shares with us his palpable love of the natural world and the essential role that science plays in its interpretation.

Hivemind187

All he writes about is evolution

He's an evolutionary biologist. Go figure!

Does Stephen Hawking regail us with tales of his afternoons on a skateboard half pipe? No he doesnt, he sticks to his area of expertise - Physics and Mathematics.

Its his little war with creationists

First (and I hate to be childish about this but ...) they started it.

Second, there IS a concerted effort to make evolution a dirty word not just in the United States but here in Ireland. Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity is a wealthy and organised (if possibly brain damaged) culture.

Frankly I'm happy that we have a luminary such as Dawkins in our corner shining a light on the inadequet arguements proffered by these people.

I'm tired of reading the same old stuff from him

Like a TV show you dont like or a pop-song you object to there is a very simple solution. Dont buy the book. See how simple that is? Its not in your home, its not in your pocket. There is no danger of it suddenly falling open on a page that says "there is no god" thanks to a chance breeze.

Frankly, the Selfish Gene (which is mostly hard science), the Ancestors Tale, Climbing mount improbable, the blind watchmaker, unweaving the rainbow ... all of these are master stroke in the use of a simple metaphor to explain very difficult concepts. While they may seem tired now it must be noted taht they have been around for the guts of 20 years with many of their simple conceits making their way into the public consciousness.

Selfish Gene - Introduced a new way of looking at genetics which made a lot of the things genes do easier to understand.

The Extended Phenotype - Showed how genes can affect not merely the organism they are using as a vehicle but the environment of that organism (beaver dam, ant hill etc).

Ancestors Tale - Used a metaphor of a pilgrimage to the source of life as a brilliant method of explaining evolutionary divergence.

Unweaving the Rainbow - A look at the Arts from the point of view of a scientist. He uses Keat's assertion that Newton damaged the world by explaining the mechanism of a rainbow as a starting point.

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins uses the Paley metaphor of the blind watchmaker to explain evolutionary biology, how the interlocking and simple components of the puzzle can produce incredibly complicated mechanisms. Its meant to be a follow up to the Selfish Gene.

Climbing Mount Improbable - About the role of probability in the process of evolution.

A Devils Chaplain - A Collection of essasys (for those of you who have ever taken to the writers craft you will understand that an author like Dawkins is likely to have dozens if not hundreds of essays published and unpublished knocking about - many exploring a single concept).

The God Delusion - Directly takes on the issue of religion from the perspective of objective rationalism.

The Greatest Show on Earth - A book attempting to dispell the myths and rubbish arguments made against evolution.

To be honest, thats a lot of very different works orbiting planet science ... funnily enough the precise planet Dawkins is an expert on. Go figure.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Selfish Gene - Introduced a new way of looking at genetics which made a lot of the things genes do easier to understand.

The Extended Phenotype - Showed how genes can affect not merely the organism they are using as a vehicle but the environment of that organism (beaver dam, ant hill etc).

Ancestors Tale - Used a metaphor of a pilgrimage to the source of life as a brilliant method of explaining evolutionary divergence.

Unweaving the Rainbow - A look at the Arts from the point of view of a scientist. He uses Keat's assertion that Newton damaged the world by explaining the mechanism of a rainbow as a starting point.

The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins uses the Paley metaphor of the blind watchmaker to explain evolutionary biology, how the interlocking and simple components of the puzzle can produce incredibly complicated mechanisms. Its meant to be a follow up to the Selfish Gene.

Climbing Mount Improbable - About the role of probability in the process of evolution.

A Devils Chaplain - A Collection of essasys (for those of you who have ever taken to the writers craft you will understand that an author like Dawkins is likely to have dozens if not hundreds of essays published and unpublished knocking about - many exploring a single concept).

The God Delusion - Directly takes on the issue of religion from the perspective of objective rationalism.

The Greatest Show on Earth - A book attempting to dispell the myths and rubbish arguments made against evolution.

To be honest, thats a lot of very different works orbiting planet science ... funnily enough the precise planet Dawkins is an expert on. Go figure.

How many of them have you read?

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How many of them have you read?

Selfish Gene, Ancestors Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, God Delusion.

I assume you'll either be shocked that I can read or will imply that I'm a fanboi.

Edit: or have a go that I had the audacity to "assume" you would "assume".

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How many of them have you read?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Selfish Gene, Ancestors Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, God Delusion.

Owned.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Selfish Gene, Ancestors Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, God Delusion.

Fair play. The Ancestors Tale took me five months to finish :-(

I'll probably pick up his new one if it's still on sale in Waterstones today. There's nothing better than having a Dawkins book on the bus and watching the looks you get from fellow passengers :-)

I'd just love if he wrote about some other things in Science. I still think there's repitition in all of them, but I love his lucid writing style and the hype sometimes is hard to avoid.

Perhaps a bunch of us could read it together and start threads for separate chapters?

eightyfish

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Selfish Gene, Ancestors Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, God Delusion.

Favourite?
I loved Ancestor's Tale. Read the illustrated edition.

Tim Robbins

eightyfish wrote: »

I loved Ancestor's Tale. Read the illustrated edition.

Sounds brilliant. I just read the text edition, a few pics would have come in handy.

My favourite would be Selfish Gene or God Delusion.