Quote:
|
Originally Posted by not_really
I have tried looking up books on evolution, but I seem to run into a continuous problem: any book reviews I would look up would be accused by ID'ers as being horribly biased and not worth reading. I ran into this problem too with books on ID, as well. But I got a few references from some friends. So, if the intelligent people of this forum could suggest any worthwhile books, I would greatly appreciate it.
|
Richard Dawkins has been mentioned, and I encourage you to read him. He is one of the best writers in the Englilsh language today, together with Gould and Daniel Dennett, who also have published very readable and enjoyable books concerning Evolution. My favorite Dawkins books are :
"Climbing Mount Improbable" -- Uses the metaphor of climbing a really steep mountain to represent the progress of Evolution. If you go around to the 'back side' of the mountain, which is vastly long, the steepness is actually a very gentle climb; it just takes a long, long time.
"The Blind Watchmaker" -- Frontal assault on the oft-used analogy between Evolution and a pile of watch parts caught up in a whirlwind. 'Is there
design in living organisms?' asks Dawkins. 'Yes, but it is not the kind of design you find in a pocket watch.'
A word about "BIAS". Many folks automatically accuse a writer of being "biased" merely because the speaker
disagrees with the writer's conclusion. This is bad logic. Is Dawkins a theist? No, he is not. Does he give "equal time" to theistic explanations of Life, such as ID? No, he absolutely does not.
Is Dawkins biased? What do you mean by "biased"? Has Dawkins made his decision for one side or the other? Yes. He is an avowed non-theist and evolutionary biologist. However, does he misrepresent the facts, hide the unanswered questions, use fallacious or misleading "logic"? NO. His writing is as "clean" and rational as any you will find.
Is a person "biased" if they have already, perhaps in their teens or college career, looked at both sides of an issue, made their choice and stuck with it? Okay, let us say they ARE biased. So what? Does that make them wrong or untrustworthy?
If so, then
EVERYBODY is wrong and untrustworthy about
EVERY issue that they hold a firm opinion on!
