|   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 by Richard Dawkins, in which he presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. He also presents arguments to refute certain criticisms made of his first book, The Selfish Gene . (Both books espouse the gene-centered view of evolution.) It was illustrated by Liz Pyle. An unabridged audiobook edition was released in 2011, narrated by Dawkins and Lalla Ward. It won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Current interest. [1] It was the basis for a BBC documentary of the same name. [2]
The title of the book refers to the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity . [3] Paley, writing long before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine 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.
 
 11: Doomed rivals
In an appendix to the 1996 edition, Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused with group selection. He dubbed this insight the evolution of evolvability.
Tim Radford, writing in The 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?" [3]
Philosopher and historian of biology Michael T. Ghiselin, writing in The 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 against alternative 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." [7]
Kenneth R. Miller writes that Dawkins "brilliantly explains how complex mechanisms and structures are put together by the process of evolution" adding "It is true that he makes certain theological points that I don’t agree with." [8]
Jerry Coyne also recommends the book: "I’ve always thought of Dawkins as an extremely smart child. He is not a child of course, he’s a really brilliant man. But he looks at things with the eyes of a child, in a way that I don’t think any scientist who wrote really well, including Stephen Jay Gould, ever could. He sees things with this fresh viewpoint that brings them alive." [9]
The American philosopher of religion Dallas 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". [10]
The engineer Theo Jansen read the book in 1986 and became fascinated by evolution and natural selection. Since 1990 he has been building kinetic sculptures, the Strandbeest , capable of walking when impelled by the wind. [11]
The journalist Dick Pountain described Sean B. Carroll's 2005 account of evolutionary developmental biology, Endless Forms Most Beautiful , as the most important popular science book since The Blind Watchmaker, "and in effect a sequel [to it]." [12]