Mandatory reading for students/interested persons

books:


	• The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author Richard Dawkins Oxford University Press, USA, 2006 - 384 pages average customer review:based on 287 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Some good ideas in the construction of the book

Dawkins uses a very interesting strategy that I've not seen before in trimming down a book that could be a little too long: Putting a lot of statements that would have worked just fine as endnotes as endnotes. This has cut a lot of fat out of the book and made a very dense topic a lot more approachable.

In trying to make the text approachable, he has also not used a single equation in the whole text-- even though he could have saved a lot of space by simply taking the route of using an equation. There would not have been much diminshment.

Lastly, he gives a balanced presentation by including the contrary arguments of some researchers in the field and by rebutting/ addressing those points (rather just neglecting to mention them). This is done in such a way that it is neither too abstruse nor a dismissal out of hand.

Making a 250 plus page text on the whether natural selection takes place at the genotypic level or the phenotypic level is a Herculean (and laudable) task in and of itself. This book is well worth the read.

for more information click here

Poorly researched

This book was very revolutionary when it was released. I can understand why--the prose is lucid, the ideas are presented in uncomplicated ways, and Dawkins panders to the reader's ego. However, there are major problems with the ways he presents information. While Dawkins gives an accurate description of evolutionary biology and comes up with the stellar idea of memes, the rest of the book is speculative and poorly-researched. Dawkins relies on pre-set ideas and notions that the reader(and Dawkins himself) might have to present difficult ideas. Some points of contention: Dawkins' ideas of women and men, Dawkins' ideas of animals, Dawkins presenting genes as 'selfish' and then believing that a short forward will help correct the misinformation, Dawkins' personal and dogmatic ideas that have no scientific backing whatsoever.

This book should really be presented as Aristotle is: history preserved, a stepping stone to the path of truth.

for more information click here

Excellent overview of evolution

Scholars pro-evolution can generally be divided into 1) those who believe in evolution at the group level (ie: The reason lions behave in a particular way is because they want to survive as a species) or 2) those who believe in evolution at an individual level (ie: The reason a particular bird behaves in a particular way is because he wants to survive as an individual bird). Dawkins' views are closer to the latter. In fact, he takes it a step further and argues for evolution at the gene level. I think he makes a very convincing case for his views. Of course nothing is certain (except uncertainty perhaps) so he does not prove his theory definitively.

The book can be hard to read at times and may be a bit slow for those with no background in biology or science. Nevertheless I think anyone with patience can read, enjoy and learn from this important book.

No matter what your views this is a very educational and important book. Highly recommended.

for more information click here

Mandatory reading for students/interested persons

This is an excellent primer to biological evolution and could also be a valuable co-text with a standard high school biology course. Written in British english, it is quite understandable though more academic than casual.
Dawkins' use of the 'gene's eye view' of the world permeates the text. It is very easy to follow. A great book to rebut any creationist's
viewpoint. This was Dawkins' first book in the field. It will not disappoint or talk down to you.
Enjoy.

Fancifully Dark

In his play "Suddenly, Last Summer," Tennessee Williams writes of a young man who, on vacation at the seashore, watches newly hatched baby turtles struggling down to the safety of the water. Only a small percentage get there, though, because the gulls overhead scoop them up and eat them faster than they can crawl. The young man, observing this and already under great psychic tension, tells his cousin that now "I have seen God!" Later on, we realize the man is morally insane, and that perhaps this was the turning point; his descent into insanity.
Whether Williams himself thought of God the same way, I don't know. But certainly the example of the turtles and gulls had been chosen, out of thousands of other such biological observations, because the young man chose to find God - or truth - in it. He could, if he had been in a sunnier mood, chosen to look at nesting robins or a mare and her colt.
In "The Selfish Gene," Dr. Dawkins argues against the idea of altruism in nature: mothers take care of their young because they love them, etc. Dawkins says they do it because it's in their genes. But he takes it one step further: he says it's the genes themselves that are struggling to survive - not the whole animal. The analogy of genes "using" animal bodies for their own "selfish" ends, as if we were robots and the genes our drivers, is made over and over again.
Of course, Dawkins realizes this is not correct. Darwinism asserts that biological life came into existence blindly: cells and animals came (and continue to come) into being, not because they chose to, but because of natural selection. And the ones who survive do so because of serendipity.
This is a very hard concept, of course, to understand. I remember Sister Pauline laboring to explain to us girls in junior biology class that the white butterflies didn't decide to turn black; they turned black over generations, due to natural selection. She had a hard time of it. (Catholics are "allowed" to choose between a literal or analogous interpretation of the Bible, so she was not breaking any official rules!)
In other words, a "selfish" gene (or animal) makes no more sense in Darwinistic terms than an "altruistic" one.
Dawkins explicitly states this on page 196. But he uses the selfish gene analogy so many more times - hundreds of times - that, just from the sheer repetitiveness of the theme, it may sink in too deeply (and do some psychic damage) to people who are not currently living on the sunny side of the street, so to speak.
For those people, like the gentleman who wrote the touching review of how this book contributed to fits of depression, I'd say: This point of view has no more legitimacy than the altrustic point of view.
An additional (and, I think, unnecessary) weight on the sensitive reader's soul is the aspersions that Dr. Dawkins, an aggressive atheist, throws on the concept of God - limited mainly, I think, to his chapter on memes (he saves most of his vituperation on this issue for another book, "The God Delusion").
On that score, I'd say: please realize that scientists don't know everything. People in different professions develop different mental prejudices: lawyers think like lawyers, engineers like engineers, etc. And scientists, for whom scientific method is everything, tend to think that anything that's not measurable therefore doesn't exist. This is a logical fallacy. They also tend to think they are so intelligent, and the world outside science is so simple, that they can read a few survey books on religion, philosophy, or history and know all there is to know about the field. This leads them to made irresponsible, blanket statements, completely unaware of how little they know.
On page 201, he winds up a chapter by saying all is not gloomy; humans can still strive towards altruism; that "[w]e, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." Then, in a long footnote, he writes that some of his colleagues disapproved of this passionate summation. "In some cases, the criticism came from doctrinaire sociobiologists jealously protective of genetic influence...." and in others, from "high priests of the left jealously protective of a favorite demonological icon!" (His exclamation point.) These latter, apparently, were objecting that he on the one hand implied a belief in free will while on the other hand talking like a genetic determinist. He objects to this, saying, if I understand it, that he's both, and ends the argument by saying, "We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. ...[W]e do so in a small way every time we use contraception."
Now, I don't pretend to have a handle on the philosophical and sociobiological arguments regarding whether or not humans have free will, or even what exactly free will is. But in the above I don't see that Dr. Dawkins really does, either: he treats it far too simply.
In sum, read the book, but don't let it get you down. After all, if the village priest doesn't have the right to bully people intellectually, than neither does the research scientist.

for more information click here

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, page 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

hot

not?

What's your opinion?

Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

The best science books ever (according to the Royal Institution)
Understand your "self" and live a better life.
AP Biology Reading List
Richard Dawkins
books i've read

search for books
30th, anniversary, author, edition, gene, introduction, selfish

Impressum / about us