The Blind Watchmaker
The Blind Watchmaker
Author:
Richard Dawkins
Publisher:
W. W. Norton
Date of Publication:
1996
ISBN:
0393315703
Rating:
10
Summary:
The goal of The Blind Watchmaker is to illustrate that evolution is an unguided process, “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker” (p. 5). To accomplish this goal, Dawkins details the elements of evolution then describes all of the alternatives that have been proposed, from Creationism to Mutationism to Lamarckism. As he introduces the “alternatives,” he proceeds to illustrate just how ridiculous they are, one by one, until the only explanation for life on Earth is evolutionary theory.
Dawkins admits up front that he is not trying to present a completely objective, non-biased treatment of evolution, “This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise. Other books on Darwinism are, and many of them are excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this one. Far from being dispassionate, it has to be confessed that in parts this book is written with a passion which, in a professional scientific journal, might excite comment. Certainly it seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade and even… to inspire” (p. xiv). In short, Dawkins wrote this to persuade people that evolution has occurred, is occurring and is the explanation for life on earth. He is particularly concerned about the high rate of adherence to Creationism in the U.S. (and other countries) and hopes that his book will reduce that rate.
I have often looked for a succinct definition of evolution, one that rolls off the tongue. I finally found one in this book, “Variation and selection work together to produce evolution” (p. 308). Variation refers to chance mutations in DNA – chance in the sense that the mutations are equally likely to favor or hurt the organism that bears the DNA. Selection refers to natural processes of competition (between species) and the fight for survival of living creatures in their environments. Traits are selected for or against based upon whether they increase the odds of reproduction in a species. As climates and environments change and as random mutations occur, species are forced, through selection pressures, to adapt or to die. Those selection pressures have resulted in the natural evolution of all living things on the planet today from a common ancestor that lived billions of years ago. That, in a nutshell, is evolution.
But what about some of the issues raised by non-evolutionists, like Creationists? One criticism of evolution is that it is very improbable that humans could suddenly come into existence. Of course, this criticism belies a serious misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not argue that “complex” or “complicated” life forms sprang into being from virtually nothing. It argues for cumulative adaptation, “A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too ‘improbable’. It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance” (p. 14). Given the proper time frame (billions of years), and a guiding force (natural selection), the existence of humans is anything but improbable.
Another criticism of evolution is that some characteristics of living things only work when they are in their current state and would not work at all if they were only partially developed. The idea behind this criticism is that it makes no sense for a characteristic to develop through non-beneficial stages just to get to a beneficial stage; that could only occur through “guided” evolution. As Dawkins points out, an integral part of the theory of evolution addresses this issue, “Wherever we have an X in a real live animal, where X is some organ too complex to have arisen by chance in a single step, then according to the theory of evolution by natural selection it must be the case that a fraction of an X is better than no X at all, and two fractions of an X must be better than one, and a whole X must be better than nine-tenths of an X” (p. 91). In other words, an eye doesn’t develop through stages that are not beneficial to the animal – each progressive stage of development provides specific benefits to the animal (or, at the least, does not cause the animal harm). Through cumulative adaptation, an organ as complex as the human eye develops, benefiting the bearer of that organ at every step along the way.
While Dawkins addressed many more criticisms of the theory of evolution, I will share just one more in this summary. Some critics of evolution argue that it makes sense that a complex entity can create other complex entities. But, what is missing, is an explanation of the first complex entity, “This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is obviously self-defeating… [A]ny God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein replicating machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself. Far more so if we suppose him additionally capable of such advanced functions as listening to prayers and forgiving sins. To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it” (p. 141).
Finally, Dawkins points out the major difference between Creationism/Intelligent Design and evolutionary theory – evolutionary theory is falsifiable, “If a single, well-verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year-old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed” (p. 225). There are numerous other ways in which evolution could be falsified (e.g., observing an incredibly complex living creature spontaneously appear); the same cannot be said of Creationism or Intelligent Design. There is no way to prove the existence of god nor to rule it out. These “alternatives” to evolution are not, therefore, scientific theories.
Review:
I’m in no position to critique Dawkins’s treatment of evolution. In fact, I read Dawkins’s books precisely because I am interested in learning more about evolution. As a result, I cannot criticize the book on that front. And, in fact, I don’t think there is anything about this book that I can criticize. I just want to point a few additional positives about this book.
For instance, I think Dawkins makes a good point when it comes to atheism and evolution, “I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (p. 6). The point Dawkins is making here is one I recently observed while reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Paine was a deist, but only because he could not, living in the late 1700s, provide an explanation for life other than divine intervention. Had Paine lived during or after the time of Darwin, he very likely would have been an atheist as the only issue remaining for atheists prior to Darwin would have been an understanding of the origins of human life. In short, evolution is a serious threat to religion precisely because it provides an alternative explanation of the origin of human life.
I’m also amazed at the sense of awe and wonder that washes over me when I read scientific research that peels open nature. For some reason this line from the book left me with goosebumps, “About 5,000 DNA letters degenerate per day in every human cell, and are immediately replaced by repair mechanisms” (p. 126). Dawkins points this out to illustrate that, despite being necessary for evolution, DNA does what it contain to prevent mutation. Dawkins explains how precise DNA is at replicating itself and, when understood in its complexity (that is, at the level at which I can understand it), I was amazed. We really are wondrous creatures! Isn’t nature remarkable?
Finally, one more quote that I thought was particularly inspiring, “Incidentally, it is worth quoting J. B. S. Haldane’s characteristic piece of lateral thinking in combating the same source of incredulity. Something like the transition from Amoeba to man, he pointed out, goes on in every mother’s womb in a mere nine months. Development is admittedly a very different process from evolution but, nevertheless, anyone sceptical of the very possibility of a transition from single cell to man has only to contemplate his own foetal beginnings to have his doubts allayed” (p. 249). I had never considered this idea before, that humans develop from single-celled organisms to extremely complex beings with specialized components in a very short period of time, in relation to evolution. Despite such insights, so many continue arguing that evolution has not occurred. Really, you must have your head stuck in the stand to not accept evolution.
Overall, I have nothing but positive things to say about this book. It is engaging reading and it is extremely informative. Dawkins thoroughly destroys the “alternatives” to evolution, including Creationism and Intelligent Design. And, in the process, he teaches people the awesome wonder that is evolution. I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about evolution!