- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/13)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/14)
The Greatest Show on Earth
- 10/13/09
- 26
It has been a couple of years since Richard Dawkins’ last major work, The God Delusion (my review). That book was a long-time fixture on the bestseller lists and served to establish Dawkins as the foremost spokesman for the New Atheists. Dawkins has long had two related emphases in his writing and speaking: the non-existence of God and the evidence in nature that evolution is responsible for all that exists. Where The God Delusion emphasized the former, his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, emphasizes the latter. It is primarily a counter-attack to advocates of Intelligent Design, and represents Dawkins’ attempt to provide natural evidence for evolution. He says simply, “Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it.”
It will not surprise you to hear that I was not convinced by Dawkins’ evidences for evolution. I will not provide a rebuttal of those evidences here since I know that others who are more qualified than I am will do just that. Instead, in just a few paragraphs, let me share a few of my thoughts on this book and what I consider its more prominent flaws.
Overall, there is a thread of arrogance in many of Dawkins’ arguments. On the one hand Dawkins wants to show how science continues to make vast and important discoveries; he wants to show that science is living and always advancing, disproving old theses in favor of new ones. On the other hand he wants to act as if all we know about evolution we know for certain. So when we see that the retina in the human eye has the appearance of being installed backwards, we can therefore state with certainty that this is the case and that it is the result of a mutation that was overcome by fortuitous adaptations in the human brain. In other words, the human eye is a mistake. But how are we to know that an advance in science, two years from now, will not show that this is no accident but is just that way it has to be—or, to borrow from the world of software, that it is a feature instead of a bug. He relies on science to prove what is absolutely true or false, never pointing out how often science has been wrong in the past and how often a new advance overshadows or disproves an old one. The history of science gives me little confidence that, in the end, he will be proven correct even with an issue as simple as the human eye.
Dawkins holds up the invariability of DNA code across all living creatures as evidence of shared ancestry (since the genetic code is shared across all living things—it is what is written in the code, not the code itself, that distinguishes one creature from another). But when I look at the same thing, I see that it points in the opposite direction. I see it, quite obviously, as evidence of a common artist. If I look at two paintings and see that they bear a great degree of similarity to one another, that they feature similar scenes and a similar brand of realism or abstraction, I do not assume that one painting evolved from the other or that together they evolved from a common ancestor; instead, I assume that they have come from the hand, the brush, of the same artist. I can grant that there is a sense in which man is related to ape and aardvark—we share a common designer. The fact that my DNA resembles that of any other living creature simply reinforces this fact. Believing in Creation does not demand that we suppose God did not reuse any parts or that every creature has to be entirely different from every other creature. One who believes in God as Creator can affirm that he is the designer and that he based all living things on common elements.
One thing I noted often in the pages of The Greatest Show on Earth is that it is often difficult to know where fact ends and speculation begins. When Dawkins says that a kind of beetle has, over evolutionary time, evolved to resemble the ant it preys upon, do we know this is the case, or is Dawkins simply filling in what he considers a logical hole? Can he prove that this beetle began looking like something other than it is now using the same scientific rigor he demands of Creationists? Or is this just speculation? In this book he rarely distinguishes between the two. Needless to say, this leads to a fair bit of potential confusion.
There is a deep and obvious irony in Dawkins’ constant use of words of agency. In his worldview there is, at least in nature and in the universe, no planning, no design, no invention, no creation, no purpose. Everything has come to be through a long process of chance. Yet throughout the book he constantly softens this harsh reality by borrowing the words of agency and purpose. Why? Could it be that the world just too hard to contemplate without injecting some kind of higher purpose into it? But there is more. Very often he turns to examples or metaphors to explain what he is trying to communicate and, again, almost invariably these examples depend on some kind of agency. So, for example, he will discuss how there came to be so many varied breeds of dog, each descended from the wolf. This may be an evidence of evolution, but if so, it evidences a designer who made the decisions about which breed would have long legs and which would have short ones, which would have big ears and which would have small ones. It was human agency that shaped each of these breeds of dog! How can this then stand as an example of the agent-less, impersonal forces of nature? Again and again he falls into this trap.
All this caused me to reflect on how cold, how stark the world would be without some kind of agency. A scientist can conjure up in his mind ways of describing the world without God, but he has a lot more trouble explaining it. Design seems to scream for a designer, elegance for agency. Even Dawkins cannot deny that the world gives the appearance of design; so his task is to prove that the most obvious explanation is not the correct one. I would challenge Dawkins in his future books not to use this cop out, not to say photosynthesis was “invented” by bacteria more than a million years ago. This is an unfair condescension that perhaps just proves that he cannot maintain his line of reasoning with any kind of consistency. Always he denies a designer, yet so often he perhaps-inadvertently invokes one.
In this book I see the importance of what we can call worldview—the way each of us understands the world, the way each of us interprets all of life. Dawkins’ worldview demands that there is no God and that everything came to be without the assistance or oversight of a designer. Not surprisingly, then, everywhere he looks he sees evidence to support his presuppositions, just as a Creationist looks to Creation and sees evidence of God. If I go out hunting for bigfoot, convinced of his existence, I will inevitably find evidence to support my theory. I will find vague footprints and half-eaten meals, each of which will prove to me that I am hot on bigfoot’s trail. My presuppositions shape my conclusions. So this book shows me again that it is impossible, or near-impossible, to overcome our worldviews.
This book shows that Dawkins is still angry, still shocked that anyone could be so hopelessly confused as to believe in God and to doubt naturalistic evolution. In fact, he refers to such people as “history-deniers,” people who see the evidence, spit on it, and turn instead to their comfortable old deities. “No reputable scientist disputes it,” he says, but of course he would use circular logic to define a reputable scientist. He would never admit that a scientist could be reputable and deny evolution. Here we have the same old Dawkins. Sure he tries a new approach, but ultimately it is more of the same.
Is there value in reading The Greatest Show on Earth?. I am inclined to think that there is, at least for some people. I find it useful to read books written from an opposing viewpoint since they provide a very natural “check” for me. They help me wrestle with not only what I believe but how I express what I believe. This book gave me a lot to think about in that regard. And, though Dawkins insisted that the unbiased reader will close the book convinced of the validity of evolution, this was not the case for me. Then again, does the unbiased reader even exist? We’ve already shown that Dawkins is far from unbiased himself.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (26)
In a few years when I can pick it up in the bargain bin or at the local library then I will probably read it. Till then I put in the column with the other Dawkin books that I wouldn’t mind reading but won’t be putting as a priority till I can pick it up cheaply or free.
Thanks for the review.
Typo seconds sentence paragraph 3. “One the one” should read “On the one”
Tim,
A very well written review of Dawkins’ book. You did a fine job of analyzing the worldview behind his arguments and assertions. At some point, I may decide to read his books, but from what I gather from your review, Dawkins is hardly the unbiased, intellectual giant many take him to be. He seems to be yet another example of the old adage “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Thanks for the review.
Once again Richard Dawkins desperately tries to refute evidence of God’s existence by working backwards from his “foregone” conclusion - a gratuitous argument at best (therefore allowing a gratuitous denial). With his latest book he simply piles onto his sandy foundation…at some point it will fail (at which point he will shout his non-belief even louder, a common tactic). Take one look at Lee Strobel’s compelling work (Case for Faith, Case for Christ, Case for a Creator), both in book or DVD, and Dawkins assertions of evolution seriously fall flat. The DVD’s are exceptional in visualizing our “happenstance.” (Think “trillion, trillion, trillion” as the odds.) What makes Strobel’s work so compelling is he started out an atheist only to “discover” God in his research; the more he looked, the more he saw clear evidence. If that’s not a strong testimony I don’t know what is. The darling of evolution, Darwin, merely posited a theory - a theory that has been co-opted by non-believer evolution supporters, continually promulgated as “mainstream” thinking. It is not. Darwin’s theory is exceptionally flawed yet those flaws are conveniently overlooked by its promoters. So why do non-believers such as Dawkins constantly try to refute God’s existence? Same story different day. The answer is simple: Because they would have to believe in something larger than themselves. To think mankind was some accident, evolving as we go, denigrates God’s power…He does not make accidents. What’s humorous is Richard Dawkins is currently being used by God to prove His existence…the proverbial “unwilling servant”. The more Dawkins says otherwise the more he helps God’s purposes.
Excellent review.
I think the appeal that Dawkins has is that he’s an in-your-face brash person when it comes to Christians and people who believe in God. It still amazes me that it is a small percentage of people who don’t believe in God, but these guys get a LOT of press and airtime—especially on this primarily humanistic, atheistic thing we call the Internet.
Romans 1 has always been true and will continue to be, and then Philippians 2 will happen.
Dear Tim,Thank you for the review as I will probably not read the book. You hit all the major issues with evolutionists and the people who believe them. As a neuroscientist, I am constantly amazed by a few things.
1. How macroevolution isn’t a real science. There are those that study microevolution- how types of beetles may have evolved etc. and then those microevolutionists write review articles on macroevolution. For example, a few weeks ago Dartmouth had Douglas Futuyma come give a talk on “Evolution, the most important theory in Biology.” He has received many awards, written many review articles, yet only had five peer-reviewed basic research journal articles over his 30 year career. If he was in any other scientific field he would not have a faculty position nevermind awards.2. How otherwise astute scientists who do very careful research will be so liberal at the end of their talk about how something is “evolutionarily relevant” when they have no training in micro or macroevolution. They would never think of jumping into any other scientific discipline with such lack of caution/ training.3. The idea by non-scientists (a category in which I put Dawkins) that science produces facts, and that consensus exists among scientists. It doesn’t! Do any set of experiments on any topic and interpretation of your own data is difficult nevermind trying to integrate it to what others have published. We really have no idea how the brain works. Thousands of papers are published every month, and really, we don’t know the language how neurons communicate, we just have a basic description of how they do. Assumptions are piled onto assumptions. Any individual cells more complex than NY city. I’m not sure how many billions of dollars has been poured into cancer research, but the mortality rate hasn’t changed since the 1950’s- evidence that we really have no idea!4. How scientists who believe in evolution, do not really understand the theory of evolution- micro or macro.5. The increasing amount of scientists who are not chalking it up to chance. We had the Nobel Laureate, Sydney Brenner, give a talk at Dartmouth a few years ago. Unfortunately, instead of discussing his research he launched into an attack of intelligent design etc. and there were a suprising number of people in the audience who stood up and argued back! In academia, people are not of one mind when it comes to our origins although often it is protrayed that way by non-scientists including Dawkins.
The real issue here is the gospel. In my career, I refrain from arguing evolution because it’s merely one person with a heart of stone and one person with a heart of flesh looking at the same thing and seeing two very different things.
Your analysis is littered with shallow comments. Take this for example:
“…but of course he would use circular logic to define a reputable scientist. He would never admit that a scientist could be reputable and deny evolution…. ultimately it is more of the same.”
After reading the book, I wonder if there is a way for you to prove more swiftly that youre not affected by facts and reasoning. For starters, try using your logic of “Circular Reasoning” on the religious opposition. It is nothing but.
if evolution is a fact, then it needs a theory to explain it. the phenomenon of theories condensing into fact is certainly precedented in Western history (see, e.g., transubstantiation)
the ossification of theories into fact presents a dead-end for science, because it destroys the ability to wonder if natural processes can happen other ways. had Einstein accepted Newtonian mechanics as fact, then he (probably) wouldn’t have bothered to come up with his theory of general relativity.
so, in the end, Dawkin’s dogmatic statement that “evolution is a fact” presents a danger to his way of thinking. doubt he realizes it.
“Overall, there is a thread of arrogance in many of Dawkins’ arguments.”
If you’re going to call God a liar, arrogance is mandatory.
Though Dawkins will not and cannot admit that God exists, God has revealed Himself in Creation, it’s order, through the Holy Spirit, the Patriarchs, the Nation of Israel, the Law (Decalogue), Old Testament History, the Prophets, in His Son Jesus Christ, in the early Church Apostles and Fathers, throughout recorded history since (AD), what further evidence is needed, it is amazing! If God did not change the lives of sinners, then we would be on sandy ground indeed, but He continually does, even in these latter days. Such testimony is so powerful that Dawkins does not even mention the matter!Conversley if we conclude Dawkins’ logic (or belief!) about evolution, all he has is a human idea or model, that attempts to reject the divine being. We ought not be surprised at Dawkins and should try to love the man by praying for his soul - only God can remove his heart of stone and enlighten him and what a powerful message that would be for the Gospel today!
Interesting - no discussion by the reviewer of the recent architectural findings of the skeleton who wasn’t an ape or a human. I mean if evolution is not true, than what was that?!!! I just so getting so tired of christian nonscientists having such strong opinions on scientific things like its just one big liberal conspiracy (global warming, evolution) . Their opinions are so intentionally unresearched and so obviously slanted by their own previously held beliefs. If you know so much better about science than why do you go to the doctor?
If evolution isn’t true why do we keep finding so many transitional fossils, and why do men have nipples and appendix and wisdom teeth, why do we find isolated animals and plants on islands, and why does geological strata show an evolutionary history based on the depth of the soil and ice just as one would expect them to be if evolution is true. I mean how do you think these people find fossils - they think about where they might be based on evolutionary theory and then they go and find them! And then the DNA just happens to be linked together as presupposed a 100 years before by Darwin?
Please read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. I don’t see how someone could read that book and think evolution is not true.
Sorry for the rant I just find this stuff inferiorating, particularly considering how important and difficult scientific advancement and progress is made and how sad this nonscientific religiously motivated opposition to it is. Its shameful that the Church did this with Galileo and its shameful the church is doing this with Darwin now.
“…its shameful the church is doing this with Darwin now.”
Darwin is dead. When his molecules reassemble themselves into a living human, give me a call. Until then, I’ll continue to worship the living Lord Jesus Christ.
From the review: It will not surprise you to hear that I was not convinced by Dawkins’ evidences for evolution. I will not provide a rebuttal of those evidences here since I know that others who are more qualified than I am will do just that.
Setting aside the confused phrasing here (rebutting evidences?), a simple exercise in walking in someone else’s shoes will illustrate how profoundly unreasonable is the reviewer’s response.
Suppose an Arminian responded to your book with the following “review”: It will not surprise you to hear that I was not convinced of Challies’ evidences for irresistible grace. I will not provide a rebuttal of those evidences here since I know that others who are more qualified than I am will do just that. The “reviewer” then goes on to point out how very defective Challies’ worldview is, figuratively shaking his head at how deluded poor Challies is to have arrived at his pathetic theology.
Would you believe that the “reviewer” took you seriously? That he really wrestled with the evidence you presented? That anything which follows such an admission is little more than axe-grinding? Would you believe that the “reviewer” presupposes his conclusions are correct and has set his heart, will and mind against entertaining anything that diverges from those conclusions? That “come, let us reason together” is falling on deaf ears? That he’s quite full of himself, even arrogantly so?
I think you’d be quite entitled to think those things.
“Interesting - no discussion by the reviewer of the recent architectural findings of the skeleton who wasn’t an ape or a human”
That would be “Ardi” and it wasn’t that recent that “it” was discovered. It was over ten years ago and the remains were apparently such a mess (along with other remains) that they spent the last ten years trying to put “it” together. And wow… what do you know… they managed to figure it out on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”… what luck!
I’m sure any mention of Answers In Genesis or The Institute of Creation Research will not count by “NiftyDrewFifty” but for those not grinding the evolutionary axe they are both worth reading.
Oh… btw… excellent review Tim.
Well done Tim for evaluating the latest from the “high priest” of “scientism” and yet keeping gracious in your words.
I thought you might like to look at this article from Christian Courier in Canada that I found recently.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1479-false-charges-against-creationism
Here is a taster:
Charge: Creationists are anti-science.
Response:There is no truth to this charge. The fact of the matter is, creationists recognize that science deals with present phenomena; this discipline, by the very nature of its methodology, is incapable of determining events-processes that transpired thousands of years ago. Paul Weiss expressed it like this:
All science begins with observation, the first step of the scientific method. At once this delimits the scientific domain; something that cannot be observed cannot be investigated by science (1965, 411).
It is a scientific fact that water freezes at 32F. It is not a scientific fact that biological life was spontaneously generated a few billion years ago. Such a notion is evolutionary speculation. Self-confessed agnostic Robert Jastrow has addressed this very point:
Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet.
The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science.
The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, 52).
Creationists do not reject genuine (proven) facts of science. What they do dispute are unsupported theories that have been designed to explain those facts. For instance, it is a fact that there are certain similarities between the bone structures of animals and men. However, it is an unsubstantiated speculation to suggest that this indicates that humans evolved from animals. Creationists are not opposed to true science.
Additionally, it is worthy of mention that many of the greatest minds in the history of science have been committed firmly to the idea of supernatural creation. Men like Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Lister, Boyle, Pascal, and others—household names in science—were not atheists; they believed that science and the concept of creation were quite compatible. It is the worst form of misrepresentation to suggest that those who believe in creation are anti-science (see Jackson 1993, 25-27
Will #1: There’s always the public library.
Paul #4 writes: “a theory that has been co-opted by non-believer evolution supporters, continually promulgated as “mainstream” thinking”
In my experience, belief in evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth is exceedingly “mainstream”.
Beth #6 writes: “The idea by non-scientists that science produces facts, and that consensus exists among scientists. It doesn’t!”
I’ll venture to say that there are some “facts” about which there is general consensus among the scientific community. For instance, that the world is not flat. That the earth revolves around the sun. Etc.
You state: If I go out hunting for bigfoot, convinced of his existence, I will inevitably find evidence to support my theory. I will find vague footprints and half-eaten meals, each of which will prove to me that I am hot on bigfoot’s trail.
Your attempt to compare the scientific investigation of evolutionary evidence with bigfoot hunting backfires. Why is belief in bigfoot pseudoscience? Precisely because evidence is misinterpreted. How do we know it’s misinterpreted? Because there are more plausible and likely explanations based on already confirmed hypotheses and well-established theories. What makes a theory well-established? Its predictive power. Its integration with other, well-established theories in other scientific disciplines.
My presuppositions shape my conclusions. Who would argue? Surely you are not claiming that presuppositions determine truth, for that would make you a relativist. So setting that aside, what is the point of your observation?
One proper question to raise would be whether the bigfoot researcher’s claims are warranted or not. The reason the proposition “A population of large primates lives in the forests of western North America” is considered pseudoscientific is because it is unwarranted. It *may* be true (and if true, no matter how surprising or unlikely given present knowledge, it is true absolutely). But one’s desire or wish or sincere conviction or presupposition that the proposition is true is irrelevant for determining whether it is in fact true. LIkewise, the skeptic’s flat refusal to entertain the possibility that the proposition might be true is irrelevant for determining whether it is in fact false.
The point to introduce into your bigfoot example is that a specific investigatory methodology, the scientific method, is available to test the matter. It has demonstrated time and time again its power to sort out truth from error within the limits of human observation. It’s what allows us to make delineations between science, pseudoscience and folk science. We may reasonably conclude that belief in bigfoot’s existence is unwarranted not because of a presupposition we hold about God’s existence or the Christian gospel, but because (a) its high improbability given its incompatibility with other well-confirmed beliefs in our web of knowledge, and (b) the application of the scientific method falsifies the claim.
Why would the bigfoot researcher’s presuppositions matter? Maybe I’d like to know why she continually misinterprets data and arrives at erroneous conclusions. But that’s a matter of psychology, not natural science. To dismiss empirical claims by appeal to presuppositions that your opponent holds is an ad hominem, an argument to the person; and in this particular case it is what C. S. Lewis called “Bulverism.”
You then state: So this book shows me again that it is impossible, or near-impossible, to overcome our worldviews. Amusingly ironic. Yes, if we make no pretense to examine evidence impartially, to entertain the possibility that our dogmatic beliefs might be false, then it is indeed “impossible to overcome our worldviews.” If we won’t even admit that some of our beliefs are reasonably controvertible, then yes, we make our irrationality a point of pride.
Nicodemus,
Great input! I appreciate it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html
yet another fossil just found showing evolutionary transitional fossils….
just another scientific conspiracy? why do they keep finding all these fossils if evolution is “just a theory”
where’s the fossil evidence for a 10,000 year old earth or the world wide flood?
I’ve criticized this review in two previous comments. I want to mention one thing that I think Challies gets right. Since Dawkins holds that there is no teleology in natural processes, it is incorrect to speak of those processes (or Nature) as “inventing” or “designing” anything. Those are terms connoting intentionality, and intentionality implies aims, goals and ends. But natural selection has no such ends. It does not invent, nor does it “invent.” Such teleological terms should not be smuggled into the account, not even metaphorically.
But that does not salvage a poor review which does little more than expose the reviewer’s own prejudices. For example, [Books like Dawkins’] help me wrestle with not only what I believe but how I express what I believe. This book gave me a lot to think about in that regard. And, though Dawkins insisted that the unbiased reader will close the book convinced of the validity of evolution, this was not the case for me.
But you’ve given no indication that you’ve even attempted to “wrestle” with your beliefs; on the contrary, you give every indication that your beliefs about natural history were impervious to any significant challenge or revision.
How is your conclusion any different than those scholastically-committed clerics who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope? Their personal incredulity toward the heliocentric theory had nothing to do with the truth of the theory. Your refusal to examine the evidence without extruding it through your interpretive grid, without rationally deliberating the merits of the hypothesis and the overall explanatory scheme, say a lot about your intellectual vices but nothing at all about inferences to the best explanation for natural history.
I think all the noteworthies on here who want to snipe at Tim for his review should cut him a little slack. As a non-scientist it would not be appropriate for him to pretend to have the knowledge to refute Dawkins. There’s going to be a lot of refutation happening, trust me, so Tim needn’t contribute to that pile. It’s fair comment for him to state what in the book did not work for him and why in spite of Dawkins best efforts this book will probably only have the effect of reinforcing everyone’s positions - it won’t do a whole lot of converting. I don’t think you need to be a scientist to recognize his language as a critical error in approach. Reviews, unless they are really extensive, are not going to engage every critical argument in a book and ultimately only provide a reviewer’s impression - they’re not a good place to stack up a long list of criticisms.
I for one intend to read this book. I’ve never read a Dawkins book before. I suspect he will be on stronger ground here than in his last wild-eyed anti-religion book. The case against religion tends to be surprisingly hard to make airtight without relying on values borrowed from the religions you are condemning; the case for an evolutionary process is somewhat stronger. The case for an evolutionary process without any agency? If Dawkins needs to invoke the language of agency what does that tell you?
Beth at #6,
Eh? A simple search of the Web of Science database revealed that Futuyma has had at least 5 peer-reviewed research articles since 2005. During the same period, he authored numerous reviews. Scanning back further reveals many more research papers. He’s not as prolific as some biomedical scientists, but ecological/evolutionary studies often span much longer time periods than cell culture work, and I don’t know how large his lab is.
Where do you get the idea that he only published five research articles over 30 years? You’re not trying to use medline for the search are you?
Great review! I appreciate the reasonable response you took.
Dr. Richard Dawkins definition of an “unbiased reader”?A reader who agrees with the conclusions of Dr. Richard Dawkins.
[ahem] Speaking of “yet another fossil just found showing evolutionary transitional fossils“ …
Dawkins clearly states that he uses the terms of agency as a shorthand. If he didn’t he would have to repeat the same clause over and over again. No one would say that evidence of vague foot prints and half eaten food was evidence of bigfoot. You have to take all the evidence as a whole. Science has made very few major errors, because by its very nature has to rule out other explanations on the grounds that they don’t fit the evidence. If you don’t use the scientific method for determining things, then you have no way of deciding whether the earth is a big turtle or not.