Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion created a storm of controversy over the question of God's existence. Now, in The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins presents a stunning counterattack against advocates of "Intelligent Design" that explains the evidence for evolution while keeping an eye trained on the absurdities of the creationist argument.
More than an argument of his own, it's a thrilling tour into our distant past and into the interstices of life on earth. Taking us through the case for evolution step-by-step, Dawkins looks at DNA, selective breeding, anatomical similarities, molecular family trees, geography, time, fossils, vestiges and imperfections, human evolution, and the formula for a strong scientific theory.
Dawkins' trademark wit and ferocity is joined by an infectious passion for the beauty and strangeness of the natural world, proving along the way that the mechanisms of the natural world are more miraculous -- a "greater show" -- than any creation story generated by any religion on earth.
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned evolutionary biologist and author. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and, until recently, held the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His first book, The Selfish Gene, was an instant international bestseller, and has become an established classic work of modern evolutionary biology.
He is also the author of The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil's Chaplain, The Ancestor's TaleThe God Delusion, and most recently, The Greatsest Show on Earth.
Professor Dawkins's awards have included the Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1989), the Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science (1990), The International Cosmos Prize (1997) and the Kistler Prize (2001).
He has Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains he no longer debates creationists because his presence only validates their status. He compares the situation to a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate an advocate of the "stork theory."
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.
Analogies can only help explain something in a simplified manner, never bring proof themselves.
Bring your proof, then we'll debate it.
Ps. Dawkins is as agnostic about God, as you are agnostic about Zeus. That should explain his position pretty well.
InVinoVeritas... if you see religion as such a beautiful thing as ballet, then your subjectivity might be colouring your analogies. I'm not saying religion isn't beautiful; in the same sense that Picasso's Guernica is beautiful
aselmiano... the WHY question... I think Dawkins may have found so much enrichment and enlightenment in his life-long persuit of the HOW questions of life, that the question "WHY?" simply never comes up. ie. there is no doubt underlying his fundamental understanding of the universe.
Dawkins is little more than a playground provocateur with a clever-sounding accent. Agnosticism is a rational and intellectually honorable tradition. Hard atheism, on the other hand, is every bit as fantastical and dishonest as fundamentalist religion. The atheists don't know, the fundamentalists don't know. They both act like they do and are equally presumptuous in their pretensions.
"Ditchkins" - as the eminent English Marxist theorist Terry Eagleton calls the trinity of atheist poseurs - miss the point entirely. "Believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus."
So now Darwinians resent being asked to show the intermediate forms predicted by their theory?! That's heading in the unscientific direction of asking us to just take their word for it. And asking "why are we here" a silly question? It is one of the most fundamental questions of philosophy! The fact that atheists like Dawkins have only meaninglessness and pointlessness to offer for an answer doesn't mean that it is a "silly" question. Not asking it is what is in fact not just silly but deeply shallow.
when evolution began might be debated, but evolution is happening right now, it's not debatable. ever see a ball game? did the winner of the ball game go on to the play offs? this is survival of the fitest. it is right there in front of you. when ever you think people began, they started evolving right then.