.jpg) First edition cover | |
| Author | Richard Dawkins |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | Evolutionary biology |
| Publisher | Norton & Company, Inc |
Publication date | 1986 |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| Media type | |
| ISBN | 0-393-31570-3 |
| OCLC | 35648431 |
| 576.8/2 21 | |
| LC Class | QH366.2 .D37 1996 |
| Preceded by | The Extended Phenotype |
| Followed by | River Out of Eden |
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book byRichard Dawkins, in which the author presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory ofevolution by means ofnatural selection. He also presents arguments to refute certain criticisms made on his first book,The Selfish Gene. (Both books espouse thegene-centric view of evolution.) An unabridgedaudiobook edition was released in 2011, narrated by Richard Dawkins andLalla Ward.
The title of the book refers to thewatchmaker analogy made famous byWilliam Paley in his 1802 bookNatural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.[1] Paley, writing long beforeCharles Darwin publishedOn the Origin of Species in 1859, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of adivine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker. Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.
To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a "creator", Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.
In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. He demonstrates this by the example of theweasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticatedcomputer simulation of artificial selection implemented in a program also calledThe Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid.
The program displayed a two-dimensional shape (a "biomorph") made up of straight black lines, the length, position, and angle of which were defined by a simple set of rules and instructions (analogous to a genome). Adding new lines (or removing them) based on these rules offered a discrete set of possible new shapes (mutations), which were displayed on screen so that the user could choose between them. The chosen mutation would then be the basis for another generation of biomorph mutants to be chosen from, and so on. Thus, the user, by selection, could steer the evolution of biomorphs. This process often produced images which were reminiscent of real organisms for instancebeetles,bats, ortrees. Dawkins speculated that the unnatural selection role played by the user in this program could be replaced by a more natural agent if, for example, colourful biomorphs could be selected by butterflies or other insects, via a touch-sensitive display set up in a garden.
In an appendix to the 1996 edition of the book, Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role ofembryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a relatedgroup of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused withgroup selection. He dubbed this insightthe evolution of evolvability.
After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation".
In the preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-viewhappens to be true, but that it is the only known theory thatcould, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence".
Tim Radford, writing inThe Guardian, noted that despite Dawkins's "combative secular humanism", he had written "a patient, often beautiful book... that begins in a generous mood and sustains its generosity to the end." 30 years on, people still read the book, Radford argues, because it is "one of the best books ever to address, patiently and persuasively, the question that has baffled bishops and disconcerted dissenters alike: how did nature achieve its astonishing complexity and variety?"[1]
Philosopher and historian of biologyMichael T. Ghiselin, writing inThe New York Times, comments that Dawkins "succeeds admirably in showing how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design". He notes that analogies with computer programs have their limitations, but are still useful. Ghiselin observes that Dawkins is "not content with rebutting creationists" but goes on to press home his arguments againstalternative theories to neo-Darwinism. He thinks the book fills the need to know more about evolution that creationists "would conceal from them." He concludes that "Readers who are not outraged will be delighted."[2]
The American philosopher of religionDallas Willard, reflecting on the book, denies the connection of evolution to the validity of arguments from design to God: whereas, he asserts, Dawkins seems to consider the arguments to rest entirely on that basis. Willard argues that Chapter 6, "Origins and Miracles", attempts the "hard task" of making not just a blind watchmaker but "a blind watchmaker watchmaker", which he comments would have made an "honest" title for the book. He notes that Dawkins demolishes several "weak" arguments, such as the argument from personal incredulity. He denies that Dawkins's computer "exercises" and arguments from gradual change show that complex forms of life could have evolved. Willard concludes by arguing that in writing this book, Dawkins is not functioning as a scientist "in the line of Darwin", but as "just a naturalist metaphysician".[3]
The engineerTheo Jansen read the book in 1986 and became fascinated by evolution and natural selection. Since 1990 he has been buildingkinetic sculptures, theStrandbeest, capable of walking when impelled by the wind.[4]
The journalist Dick Pountain describedSean B. Carroll's 2005 account ofevolutionary developmental biology,Endless Forms Most Beautiful, as the most important popular science book sinceThe Blind Watchmaker, "and in effect a sequel [to it]."[5]
