Richard Dawkins’ new book will be called The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. That’s exciting — an easy, accessible book presenting all the evidence for evolution needs to be written. Hopefully this will be it, with lots of fossil photographs and diagrams.
Here’s the blurb:
150 years ago the momentous findings in Charles Darwin’s masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species”, shook the scientific and religious world to its core. Perhaps more astonishing, the Creation-Evolution debate sparked by his seminal work of 1859 continues unabated in the 21st century. Now, Richard Dawkins, world renowned evolutionary biologist and famous atheist, takes on the Creationists with a brilliant and uncompromising look at the incontrovertible evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The mass of data that proves the theory is vast, with scientific fingerprints numerous and varied. The logic Dawkins employs to explain it is the same throughout the book: the evidence that we see is exactly what we should expect to see if evolution had happened. He examines the facts from the point of view of flora and fauna, from cabbages to Great Danes. Anatomy yields a raft of clues whether from mice or fish, and the structure of molecules underscores the message even more convincingly.
With answers to a miscellany of common questions, and detailed descriptions of what our ancestors would have looked like at various landmark dates, Dawkins leaves us with little room for doubt. “The Greatest Show on Earth” comes at a critical time; systematic opposition to the truth of evolution is now flourishing as never before in America, while in Britain pockets of ‘Intelligent Design’ are entering our schooling system at an alarming pace.
Following the storm upon publication of “The God Delusion”, Dawkins continues the heated debate about science and religion whilst furthering the public education that he feels passionately is his responsibility. His new book is at once a thrilling tribute to science, the wonders of nature and his ultimate hero, Charles Darwin.
(via)
John M: I think the biggest issue we are seeing is that this kind of money is available to pastors in the first... 
Siberia: I kind of don’t give a rat’s ass about propagating my genes. I’d much rather have this particular iteration of my... 
Ty: If that was a possible benefit of being above the line, then yes. I’m extraordinarily capable of success when I... 
K: Couldn’t agree more – especially as I’ve studied the Bible on the role of women and... 
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
26 Comments
exciting!
“data that proves the theory” is irresponsible, though. From a strict logical viewpoint scientific theories cannot be proved.
You can amass sufficient supporting evidence to convince yourself that it is well worth continuing to behave as if it were true.
Particularly seeing as RD discussed the concept of scientific “proof” at such length in Break the Science Barrier (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4875349040600901161), I’d imagine he didn’t write the blurb.
yeah, the publisher being sloppy and ignorant, like a journalist
@andyb
It may not be strictly correct “From a strict logical viewpoint …” but what do you expect it to say. To my mind it’s no different to saying I don’t believe in god. Should I be expected to add although if good evidence is produced to show that this is incorrect I will change my belief every time I say this?
Well, for Dawkins to continually attack Christians by saying there is evidence for evolution, therefore they shouldn’t believe in God is like eating an orange and saying “This apple is no good!” Sure, there are Christians who believe God created the world and there is no room for the evolutionary theory. But the most careful exegesis of Genesis 1 (and other passages) clearly shows that God wasn’t dictating how He created the world scientifically. He was merely pointing out how the earth was empty and that He filled it with His creative act.
Genesis 1:2 could be translated, “Now the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited.” Days 1-3 God made the earth habitable, days 4-6 God made the habitable earth inhabitable. In other words, the “days” are merely frameworks to help us see how God created and filled the earth. There’s no doubt that God created, but He didn’t give us a scientific answer as to how He created. All Genesis 1 tells us is that God created and that He made humans in His image.
Though the Bible isn’t making any pronouncements that would help the scientific world, it could be reasoned that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He then used the natural process of evolution until about the time of the hominids. Finally, He formed humans especially and gave them life and made them in His image: with creativity, a desire for community, with an intellect, with a will, etc. This is a plausible sequence of events but it too is a theory. However, it leaves room for evolution and is actually the best understanding of the Biblical text.
Back to my original point. Over the next 20 years or so, I believe the Christians who are so adamant about 6 literal days of creation will see that the best understanding of the text of God’s Word doesn’t have anything to do with 6 literal days. The Bible isn’t talking about the scientific “how?” However, God did create the world and He tells us that He did in Genesis 1. Dawkins and others are still arguing that “this orange is bad” when careful exegesis of the text has already moved way beyond oranges. This isn’t new exegesis, either, as some reaction to new scientific theories. Augustine and Calvin and many others have understood that Genesis 1 is figurative language and there are many scientists and Christians today who see things this way…not because their faith depends on it, but because it is the best answer to what God is saying. We’re eating apples and Dawkins is trying to tell us not to eat the oranges. I’m so sorry he has to waste all of his time.
@Nathan Creitz
You seemed to have written a long post so I’ve summed it up for you. The Bible how been shown to be complete and utter bunk time and time again but as I have absolutely faith that it is the word of god I need to redefine what it actually means.
Oh and if you’ve got any actually evidence for the many ‘facts’ that you made in you post I would love to hear then as ‘god did it and the Bible proves it’ is not particularly convincing.
Nathan Creitz:
And what is your scientifically exegesis of Genesis 2? You know, the weird trees, talking ’snake’, rib bone babe, God walking and talking in a garden, nakedness shame, etc, etc, etc.
If this account is not literally true, then Pauline theology (among other biblical beliefs) completely falls apart. You just have to plop this preposterous myth right down in the middle of a cogent theory that wouldn’t need it even if it wasn’t mind-blowing goofy.
At one point I tried to do this same harmonization dance and looked just as foolish.
Very exciting, I look forward to picking up a copy when it’s released in Sept.
It’s the publisher’s marketing dept. that writes the back blurbs, and the more sensational they can make it the better. AFAIK, the authors have no hand in it.
@Nathan Creitz
…with a mind capable of reason, doubt, skepticism, logic… which all point to no God when applied in the same manner as they are applied to every other aspect of our world.
They see it this way, more and more, and ever updated and changing, because they must adapt their interpretations relative to what modern science continues to show us that we didn’t know before. It’s called an inverse relationship.
The description of this book looks very similar to ‘The Blind Watchmaker.’
@Jabster
One way of putting it would be to say that in the hundreds of years since The Origin was published all observations fit perfectly with the theory. It is still not proved, though. Not snappy enough for blurb, I grant you!
The definition of a scientific theory, is that it must be framed in such a way that it can be disproved. That was makes science different to religion.
Newtons laws were thought to be the best model for hundreds of years (and, indeed they are still very useful). However, they are slightly wrong, and under extreme circumstances, extremely wrong.
Nathan Creitz,
What is figurative and what is literal? Where do you personally draw the line?
If the creation of the world can be a metaphorical account of how we got here, then couldn’t Adam and Eve’s experience also be a metaphorical account, a metaphorical story of how key components of human behavior emerged?
If the creation account is figurative, why wouldn’t the account of human “sin” also be figurative?
However, if this is the case, what is your basis for believing in the rest of Christian theology?
RE: “… ‘data that proves the theory’ is irresponsible, though. From a strict logical viewpoint scientific theories cannot be proved.”
It’s not really irresponsible, assuming that everyone knows what the word “theory” actually means in the realm of science(which, as we know, many if not most Theists clearly do not).
True, though….science and its theories are provisional; they don’t claim absolutes. Thus, it appears to me that the statement is simply saying that the available “data” has been affirmed to be more than just a “hypothesis” or “guess”; the “data” qualifies as an actual, viable “theory”—similar to how “Atomic Theory” is an actual, viable “theory”.
Notwithstanding, we know that despite this information, Creationists will cling to their (non-sequitur) position that if they can somehow bash enough holes in Evolution, that “Creation” must be the default explanation.
Tele-
You’re on to something there. You may remember the part in the “story” where adam was put to sleep…we dont hear of him awakening? Not until the NT…awake (now) and Christ will shine on you (as your true nature, identity).
Maybe sin (death) was a bad dream…and all we have to do is…wake up.
Now think about all that talk of fairy tales and what I said they meant to us.
But we keep hitting the snooze alarm and so we stay asleep in the illusion of this (temporal) life.
JC
I like the idea of this book. A less offensive title than “The God Delusion” but presenting evidence that shows there is no need for a God to explain the way things are.
Could be a gateway drug to turn Christians into atheists, if they can get past the fact that it was written by Dawkins.
Carl Zimmer’s “evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” did the same thing for me, really. It didn’t turn me atheist overnight, but it definitely changed the way I thought about the world, and eventually I realized that God didn’t make any sense.
@andyb
I think “proved” is fair in the sense that it’s commonly understood and maybe it’s a bit of a slap in the face to the Creationists who want to put Evolution in just a theory stickers on books! I think it would be better to just have an explanation of what it means when something is called a theory in science in the introduction.
“The definition of a scientific theory, is that it must be framed in such a way that it can be disproved. That was makes science different to religion.”
Religion may not be framed in this way but it certainly has a lot of content in its holy texts/world view that can be disproved (I use this in the sense that it’s very unlikely to be true). Take the Bible as an example, even Lord Carey has publicly said that much of it shouldn’t be read literally- the great flood just what sort f person really believes this actually happened. Of course this doesn’t mean that this disproves god but it certainly points to disproving god as described by mainstream religions without lots of hand waving about that verse doesn’t count, that verse isn’t meant to be taken literally it’s just to demonstrate a point, let’s just not mention that verse shall will etc. My own pet theory is that with time religion will continue to shrink in its scope as knowledge increases its own. It’s dead easy to claim that our sun was created by this that or other god or is even a god itself to ignorant people but a lot more difficult now.
While I’m sure I will buy and enjoy the book, I do worry that Dawkins’ well known anti-theism will put some people off reading it on the assumption that he’s going to try and de-convert them. The same book with a different name on the front might educate more people about evolution thanks to the lack of preconceptions about the author. :/
The publisher description says..”The mass of data that proves the theory is vast, with scientific fingerprints numerous and varied. The logic Dawkins employs to explain it is the same throughout the book”…..which means it will be just as easily refuted as “The God Delusion” was.
@Bantay
When you say “just as easily refuted” do you mean the standard technique of just repeating that’s not true, that’s not true; putting your fingers in your ears and saying not listening, not listening; and then finally saying “it was god that did it and I’ve got the bible to prove it.”
For anyone that wants to get a good idea of where Bantay’s “reasoning” is coming from just click on his name or go here:
http://my.opera.com/Bantay/blog/
I couldn’t read too much because I just kept shaking my head and laughing. Is this what qualifies as intellectual discourse? Get ready for a complete misrepresentation of the facts. :) Good times!
I can’t say I’m terribly excited by this; there are dozens (hundreds?) of books already on the market that make this exact same point. I’m currently reading Prothero’s Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters, and enjoying it immensely, for example.
More of the same is useful, yes, and Dawkin’s name will bring in some readers who might otherwise pass over the subject (and alienate others), but is there anything here that’s actually new and exciting?
I’ll probably get around to it eventually, but I’m not exactly going to be waiting with bated breath.
wintermute- Thanks for the tip on that book, I may have to check that out as well.
“However, God did create the world and He tells us that He did in Genesis 1. ”
Clearly, Dawkins is not wasting his time then.
Well as this is a thread about evolution this is an interesting article from The Guardian about a lesser know part of Darwin’s life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/19/charles-darwin
There’s also a new David Attenborough series starting on the BBC about Evolution, which I shall be capturing off-air DVB and posting the MPEG-2 Elementary Program Stream to UseNet.
OsGBl6 comment2 ,