Top critical review
8 people found this helpful
Author assumes evolution is fact, as if omniscient himself
on 14 April 1999
Let me be clear. I am not an expert in any of the many disciplines that the theory of evolution covers, nor did I read more than about 5 chapters of the book. But I was educated to believe that Darwinism is fact, and the facts as I see them now is that Darwinism is far from fact, and has been almost thoroughly discredited as a theory of everything, everything that it purports to explain. For example, the fossil record shows stasis, not mutation, in the overwhelming majority of cases. Even Stephen Gould has had to admit this.
For more details, anyone not completely convinced that the theory of evolution is the only truth about life's mysteries, will find many books. My favorite is "Darwin On Trial," by Professor Phillip Johnson.
This is not to say that evolution doesn't occur, it does w/o a doubt, but it simply does NOT explain the development of all organisms and their incredible complexities, not to my satisfaction.
There is a certain omniscient tone in Mr. Dawkins's writing that I find quite repugnant. He writes like he knows w/o a doubt that there is no Creator, a strange paradox indeed. As other reviewers have stated, he assumes evolution is a fact and argues from that point. And who can "prove" what is right here? None of us saw any of these (large-scale) evolutionary changes happen, gradual or not, and as a number of authors have stated, Darwinian evolution itself clearly requires its own kind of faith to be accepted. I feel that anyone with an open mind would admit that the notion of a Creator is just as feasible as the so-called mysterious hand of random mutation and natural selection. I feel that a person would have to be an all-knowing being himself to be able to state with 100% certainty that there was/is no Creator.
Science in of itself denies the notion of a supernatural Creator, science always looks for a natural explanation. And just because scientists can explain something, that doesn't mean it is necessarily proven, not at all.
The dangerous corollary to Darwinian evolution as a theory that explains all of life is that there is no meaning to life, no "spiritual" meaning anyway. For those who want "proof" that there is spiritual meaning, ask yourself deep in your heart, is there some "Higher" meaning to life? If you have already decided that the heart is nothing more than an organ which has no purpose other than to pump blood, or if you can honestly say that you get no answer, then I guess you can be content, no, as certain as the author of this book is, that all of life is just a meaningless, random assemblage of physical components that through "blind" chance somehow evolved by itself to complexity.
Fortunately, I believe that if there is a Creator, It doesn't really care what we believe, It cares what kind of people we are and what virtues we embody.