• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Richard Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow - worth $5?

Krok

Active Member
Try reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' - the whole book is based on discrediting Creationism, religion and any opposition to Evolution.

I do not recall the specific pages as the book was used for cat litter some time ago.
I've got a copy. And read it. Nowhere does he even attempt anything like "provide scientific proof about things".

Discrediting something is not the same as to "provide scientific proof about things".:no:
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Update on Weaving the Rainbow: I made it to page 5 then couldn't take any more!

It really is utter garbage, can't understand why this Dawkins person has any success as a publisher. He really shouldn't be allowed to write.

I'm fairly sure I could write a better book myself - may even give it a go one day.

so I am afraid I cannot give my expert opinon on this book so you will all have to try it yourself - I did try though.
 

Splarnst

Active Member
Update on Weaving the Rainbow: I made it to page 5 then couldn't take any more!
Why did you stop? What makes it "utter garbage"? Please give us a specific example. As far as I can tell, the only part you read is the name of the author.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
Update on Weaving the Rainbow: I made it to page 5 then couldn't take any more!
Seriously? I read the preface and part of chapter one last night, and was impressed with the views Dawkins put forward. The pursuit of science in no way detracts from the beauty we observe in the world. What did you find so offensive or unbelievable that made you stop reading?

so I am afraid I cannot give my expert opinon on this book so you will all have to try it yourself - I did try though.
No, you didn't :p
 
Last edited:

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Update on Weaving the Rainbow: I made it to page 5 then couldn't take any more!

Hilarious.

It really is utter garbage, can't understand why this Dawkins person has any success as a publisher. He really shouldn't be allowed to write.

He's not a publisher. He's a scientist who has written many books. The publishers would be Oxford Books, Basic Books, Houghton Mifflin, etc.

I'm fairly sure I could write a better book myself - may even give it a go one day.

so I am afraid I cannot give my expert opinon on this book so you will all have to try it yourself - I did try though.

Creationists do not supply expert opinions.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
This thread is hilarious... :biglaugh:
I may actually have to read a Dawkins book now. I wonder if my library has it?

wa:do
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
This thread is hilarious... :biglaugh:
I may actually have to read a Dawkins book now. I wonder if my library has it?

wa:do

Honestly, you being a biology student, I'm highly surprised you haven't.

I had to read some of him when I was in AP Bio back in high school.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Honestly, you being a biology student, I'm highly surprised you haven't.

I had to read some of him when I was in AP Bio back in high school.
Nope... I read some Darwin, Gould, Sean B. Carrol, E.O.Wilson, Carl Zimmer and so on. Mostly on my own time.
In classes we read primary literature and other science articles.

wa:do
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Why did you stop? What makes it "utter garbage"? Please give us a specific example. As far as I can tell, the only part you read is the name of the author.


I could cut and past the whole 4 1/2 pages that I read if you like?

I didn't even bother with the preface as that was just hardcore waffle. So I just jumped straight to the good stuff - as disappointing as expected.

I don't think science and attempted literature mix. It's one or the other I think.

However I do have a real science book that I will have a go on later though I usually find them a little tedious to read, again too much waffle - I prefer the God stuff really.

Perhaps Steven Hawking is a better bet - there are some of his books in my local shop - he has a similar sounding name but I seem to remember he is of a higher intellectual calibre than old Professor Plod Dawkins so maybe that is what is needed.
 
Last edited:

Splarnst

Active Member
I could cut and past the whole 4 1/2 pages that I read if you like?
Yes, please do so. Or, if that's too much work, you could give us an example, like I originally asked. I'd like to see what you think is "utter garbage." It would amuse me.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Here is the first paragraph:

Richard Dawkins said:
We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the grains of sand in Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets that Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

I only made it to the second sentence before the alarm bells started ringing - I've highlighted it in bold as it's just so daft.

Anyway I am sure there are plenty of bones to pick through in this first paragraph - the rest of the 5 pages just carried on it the same vein.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Here is the first paragraph:



I only made it to the second sentence before the alarm bells started ringing - I've highlighted it in bold as it's just so daft.

Anyway I am sure there are plenty of bones to pick through in this first paragraph - the rest of the 5 pages just carried on it the same vein.
...I don't understand why it upset you.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
it's just pseudo-philosophy.

I was hoping for a book that was going to explain the arts in a scientific way - reminded me too much of 'Blind Watchmaker' and his ridiculous mathematical theories.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
it's just pseudo-philosophy.

I was hoping for a book that was going to explain the arts in a scientific way - reminded me too much of 'Blind Watchmaker' and his ridiculous mathematical theories.
Was it a philosophy? Sounded more like an observation.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
It sounded like a poetic thought exercise... a way to get people to consider how fortunate they are to be alive. A little poetic thinking to warm up the old brain cells before discussing art.

wa:do
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Perhaps one paragraph sounds ok but a whole book of this sort of stuff was just too much (well 4 and a half pages). The waffling gets worse though.

anyway, I think I am a little biased against poor old Dawkins.

I still say that a 50/50 split between science and religion/philosophy doesn't make great reading as it's neither one thing or the other.
 
Top