Product Description

The first collection of essays from renowned scientist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins is an enthusiastic declaration, a testament to the power of rigorous scientific examination to reveal the wonders of the world. In these essays Dawkins revisits the meme, the unit of cultural information that he named and wrote about in his groundbreaking work The Selfish Gene. Here also are moving tributes to friends and colleagues, including a eulogy for novelist Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; correspondence with the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; and visits with the famed paleoanthropologists Richard and Maeve Leakey at their African wildlife preserve. The collection ends with a vivid note to Dawkins's ten-year-old daughter, reminding her to remain curious, to ask questions, and to live the examined life.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #50127 in Books
• Published on: 2004-10-27
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Amazon.com
Richard Dawkins has an opinion on everything biological, it seems, and in A Devil's Chaplain, everything is biological. Dawkins weighs in on topics as diverse as ape rights, jury trials, religion, and education, all examined through the lens of natural selection and evolution. Although many of these essays have been published elsewhere, this book is something of a greatest-hits compilation, reprinting many of Dawkins' most famous recent compositions. They are well worth re-reading. His 1998 review of Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense is as bracing an indictment of academic obscurantism as the book it covered, although the review reveals some of Dawkins' personal biases as well. Several essays are devoted to skillfully debunking religion and mysticism, and these are likely to raise the hackles of even casual believers. Science, and more specifically evolutionary science, underlies each essay, giving readers a glimpse into the last several years' debates about the minutiae of natural selection. In one moving piece, Dawkins reflects on his late rival Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and clarifies what it was the two Darwinist heavyweights actually disagreed about. While the collection showcases Dawkins' brilliance and intellectual sparkle, it brings up as many questions as it answers. As an ever-ardent champion of science, honest discourse, and rational debate, Dawkins will obviously relish the challenge of answering them. --Therese Littleton

From Publishers Weekly
Oxford don Dawkins is familiar to readers with any interest in evolution. While the late Stephen Jay Gould was alive, he and Dawkins were friendly antagonists on the question of whether evolution "progresses" (Gould: No, Dawkins: Yes, depending on your definition of "progress"). Dawkins's The Selfish Gene has been very influential, not least for his introduction of the "meme," sort of a Lamarckian culturally inherited trait. In this, his first collection of essays, Dawkins muses on a wide spectrum of topics: why the jury system isn't the best way to determine innocence or guilt; the vindication of Darwinism (or what he insists is properly called neo-Darwinism) in the past quarter-century; the fallacy in thinking that individual genes, for instance a "gay gene," can be directly linked to personality traits; what he sees as the dangers of giving opponents the benefit of the doubt just because they wrap their arguments in religious belief; several sympathetic pieces on Gould; and a final section on why we all can be said to be "out of Africa." Fans of Dawkins's earlier books should snap up this collection. Readers new to him may find that the short format (many of these essays were originally forewords to books, book reviews or magazine pieces) doesn't quite do his reputation justice. Dawkins will antagonize some readers by his attacks on religion: his tone in these essays may fall just short of intellectual arrogance, but he certainly exhibits an intellectual impatience not always beneficial to his argument. Still, Dawkins's enthusiasm for the diversity of life on this planet should prove contagious.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Scientific American
Dawkins, a renowned evolutionary biologist who now holds an endowed chair as professor of the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford, is a man of firm opinions, which he expresses with clarity and punch. His topics in this collection of essays range widely--academic obscurantism, his "distrust of the jury system" and "where we go wrong in education" among them. He also enlarges on concepts he put forward in his acclaimed book The Selfish Gene and in introducing the meme. That is the name he gave to "mind viruses," or the idea "that self-replicating information leaps infectiously from mind to mind." He sees religions as such viruses. "To describe religions as mind viruses," he writes, "is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.... As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence."

Editors of Scientific American

Customer Reviews

Always something more to learn
This is a book to sit and read. You are going to reflect why the evolutionary understanding is great!!!

Dawkins addresses some myths
Some excellent essays. A touch too close to being a bit racist here and there, but perhaps that was inaccuracy of language. For the first time I think I actually understand something about evolution. His point about the 98% figure of genetic similarity with chimps was well made. He cited the fact that if you compare two books, there will be a lot of common letters and the figure would suggest similarity. But if you were to compare them sentence by sentence, they would probably share only a tiny fraction of commonality.

What I still don't understand about theorists on evolution is how they still discuss superiority or desirability for breeding in terms of strength, speed, size etc. After many hundreds of thousands of years during which human cooperation in agriculture, shared civilisation and eventually technological change has transformed the success rate of the species, why are qualities of cooperation, constancy or intellect now not also included in the factors that influence natural selection? Perhaps they are. Maybe I should read late Darwin.

The idea that atheists just go one God further was also a point well made. Many of us would admit to being atheists when it comes to Mithras, Zeus, Thor, etc etc. Of all the Gods, most people who claim not to be atheists probably only admit a belief in one and thus reject thousands of other. It's a bit like claiming to be a vegetarian on the grounds that you don't eat duck, but do eat all the rest of the animal world.

The point about cloning and identical twins was made a few too many times, I think, but then it was a collection of essays. It is a point, however, that the non-scientist would find it hard to relate to, since for someone from that starting position the twins are "natural" and the "clone" is not, despite the fact that genetically they represent identical concepts. The position would be really interesting, however, if the twins, or triplets or quads etc arose as a result of in vitro fertilisation and then implantation, and hence were not "natural".

Nobody does it better, but . . .
Richard Dawkins is more eloquent in explaining biology and more forthright in disparaging its critics than anyone else writing in English today. However, the Greeks said even Homer nods, and I want to pursue a thread in this collection of reviews, prefaces and articles where I think Dawkins does not follow his own argument.

A recurrent proposition in these essays is that humans evolved in Africa (even Dawkins haters could be charmed by his essays on his return to Kenya) to meet African conditions. Surprisingly, he does not then inquire: How does it come about that a genetic armamentarium designed for camping on the plains of Africa produced a species capable of both inventing absurd religions and working out, through direct observation and indirect, abstract arguments, what stars are? What possible selective value could having a brain capable of either have to a caveman?

The answer, of course, is that the mental function evolved for reasons unrelated to stars or spooks but once evolved proved to have other capacities. In medicine, it is not uncommon for physicians to discover that a drug selected for one organ or syndrome has a completely unexpected, positive effect on some other organ or syndrome. (And, of course, it is even more common for it to have an unexpected, negative effect elsewhere.)

The significance of this is that it opens the door to a special status for humans. Dawkins does not want to concede this, claiming, for example, that if we were aware of the continuous genetic gradient between us and chimpanzees, we would not countenance any fundamental difference between us and, therefore, would not `sacrifice' chimps in medical experiments.

This is very strange proposition for a professional zoologist to be making. What are species for?

The genetic continuity is present, obviously, and, as Dawkins himself sometimes says, goes right back to an ur-organism. So, where does the quantitative difference become qualitative? If it is unthinkable to torture chimpanzees (or, to put it positively, as Dawkins does, if it should be thinkable to imagine interbreeding with them), why not object to eradicating mosquitoes that carry the malaria plasmodium that kills a half a million African babies each year (or maybe a million, who's counting?).

One barrier is to claim for humans a soul. This is nonsense. No one has ever seen such a thing. But another barrier is the capability of being moral actors, and everybody has observed that.

It is not obvious that moral action has selective advantages for inclusive fitness. Dawkins himself worries that having too many babies risks famine. Indiscriminate breeding, without worrying about moral consequences, is likely to leave more descendants, at least in the nearest subsequent generations, than discriminate, morally driven breeding -- or non-breeding, as the case may be.

Surely the evolution of a trait that confers voluntary selective unfitness on a species makes that species qualitatively different from all other species that cannot do it?

I expect this deviationism is a result of Dawkins's desire to see certain outcomes. Very natural it is, too, but it needs to be struggled against. Evolution up to us was non-deterministic. We should keep it that way.

Otherwise, this is a marvelous book.