Show Book List  | More books by Richard Dawkins

Reviews from Amazon
Amazon.com (0141026170) 63 reviews
Amazon.co.uk (0141026170) 11 reviews
Amazon.ca (0141026170) 48 reviews
A selection of these reviews is given below

Reviews elsewhere on the web:
Boston Review
SpikeMagazine.com
answersingenesis.org
Danny Yee
Dougal Stanton

Richard Dawkins

Climbing Mount Improbable

The idea of an evolutionary landscape, with its peaks and valleys, is well known, and quite a few popular science writers have written about it. So what distinguishes Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable fom the others? Well, I felt that it was the wide range of examples which Dawkins brings to the reader. He starts off with examples of volutionary convergence, and goes on to look at subjects such as the spiders webs, the different methods of animal flight, and the shape of shells There are also chapters on embryo development and on pollination, including the life of the fig wasp.

You may wonder about the role of chance in the journey through the evolutionary landscape. I'm not sure you'll find the answer here - Dawkins debunks the '747 in a junkyard' idea, but doesn't go into great detail about the nature of probability or how it acts in evolution. What he does have is the results of plenty of computer simuations - some of these he has developed, some are the work of others. Dawkins naturally takes every opportunity to demonstrate the errors of creationism, and one of the simulations shows that far from the eye being a problem, in fact it can evolve very rapidly. All in all an excellent book if you want to find out more about the nature of evolution, or even if you just want to learn about some of the living things with which we share the planet.

Amazon.com info
Paperback 320 pages  
ISBN: 0141026170
Salesrank: 1551908
Weight:0.62 lbs
Published: 2006 PENGUIN
Marketplace::Used from $15.44
Buy from Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk info
Paperback 320 pages  
ISBN: 0141026170
Salesrank: 10288
Weight:0.62 lbs
Published: 2006 Penguin
Amazon price £4.99
Marketplace:New from £4.81:Used from £5.00
Buy from Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.ca info
Paperback 320 pages  
ISBN: 0141026170
Salesrank: 627512
Weight:0.62 lbs
Published: Penguin UK
Marketplace:New from CDN$ 14.85:Used from CDN$ 19.42
Buy from Amazon.ca






Product Description
How could such an intricate object as the human eye - so complex and so precise - have come about by chance? This title builds a carefully reasoned argument for evolutionary adaptation as the force behind the various life forms on earth.
 
Climbing Mount Improbable **
Like most of Dawkins' books, this one just rambles on and on. It's like sitting through a long and boring lecture. He makes his point and then goes over it again and again until you start wondering why you started it in the first place. I love his thoughts and ideas, but reading his text books is a real chore.
 
Classic unproven assumptions *
So many unproven assumptions and wild speculations, along with a misuse of "possible," which can only be used correctly if non-zero probability has been demonstrated using known science. Book should be titled "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope of Mount Impossible."
 
Very Improbable *
I climbed a lot of mountains, but the wishing well must in serious cases always be controlled by good reason. I can not see that D. gave me convincing arguments to climb that mountain.
D. is nothing more than an eloquent protagonist of the atheists of our times. The polemics can be interpreted as a reflex of the fact, that secularisation is on the retreat, as the Bitish Philosopher John Gray announced it lately. He himself is not a Christian believer, but he found that the present enmity towards religion is partly a reaction of the retreat of secularisation.
I also find the argumentation of such people like D. Sam Harris, Philip Pillman, Christopher Hitchens and others not serious or respectable from a scientific view, rather zelous. I think they have to learn to accept that it is the Christian fundament that enables the free discussion of our times at all. There is no way out, if you read the New Testament that it stands for freedom of thought and belief.
Our western society is based on Christian history and Christian principles, at least since we had the reformation, like it or not!. So far critics that make Christianity responsible for lack of freedom, intolerance and wars go far away of what is the question. It must also be remembered that the most central point of departure of atheism critics is the free will of very biblical origin. The free will of man is already of central meaning in the Genesis.
I think that D. makes the same mistake as so many before him. He blames the Christian belief instead the (so-called-) Christians. The Christians deserve all critics. But atheists do stand in the glass house. Sometimes scientific knowledge is taken erroneously for "truth". This is dangerous.
This creates "scientific" fundamentalists and fanatics. Hitler was a big friend of science and Darwinism. And both served his racism! The Holocaust would have been possible without Atheism, but it would not have been possible with true Christianity. The cult about Mao or Lenin is not in opposition to atheism or communism! Atheism as political project was ruled out there. The result is always a substitute for a religion, a religion itself, which can only be hold with tyrannical means. I am no prophet to say that with people like D. in the government who make their credo their political will, we would face nothing more than another dictatorship.
D. has nothing except his failing good reason to hinder his own falling into the trap of conceit. Science and moral do not fit in the same melting pot, you can build the nuclear bomb, and you can throw it, you do not need morale for it. Science can say that the fittest survive and some racists know the method to wipe out those who are useless eaters. It is apparent that those who adore secularism are believing in scientific development. But it is of no benefit if you do not have the right moral for it. From where do You get it? From atheism?
 
Like a music box that keeps on playing the same tune **
The beginning of this book is wonderful: astonishing examples of animal mimicry, convergence and divergence, and the marvels of spiders' web construction. This is the sort of biology I love, and Dawkins is one of the best writers of it.

But he can't keep it up for long. Almost at the beginning we start to see little hints that this is not just a book of biological wonders - well, the title really gives it away, but then there are things like that word "designoid", and soon we have another lesson on the biomorphs from The Blind Watchmaker. Finally he can restrain himself no longer, and we find ourselves among the usual Dawkinsian obsessions: natural selection is the solution to all problems, everything is possible if we divide into a sufficiently large number of steps, evolution is not random, design is an illusion, God would have to be impossibly complex, and so on.

He is really writing the same book over and over, changing the title and the details, but the message remains the same. The fascinating thing is that you could swap whole paragraphs from one Dawkins book to another and no one would notice. And yet each book is apparently written as if the reader has not read any of the others.

To use an evolutionary metaphor, Dawkins' books are like a virus which keeps mutating, changing its coat so we don't recognise it, while it keeps trying to inject the same essential message into our minds.
 
STILL AT THE FOOT OF MOUNT IMPROBABLE ****

I read CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE many years ago. I consider it Dawkins's best work. Since I accept the fact of evolution no less than he does, I have no argument with his explanation of the mechanisms by which improbable evolutionary structures evolved. It is his understanding of the nature of these mechanisms as blind and random that I find completely unconvincing. This review is an elaboration of why.
Among people who disagree with Dawkins's opinions it is common to point out that his views are no less fundamentalist than that of the Creationists he opposes. I am aware that he and his allies do not seem to understand what we mean by this. I shall clarify. In THE SELFISH GENE Dawkins writes that if mankind ever faces an alien race of superior technological development, the most important gauge that mankind has advanced beyond mere savagery will be the theory of evolution. He means by this, of course, the blind and random evolution he champions in his work. To be absolutely certain that thousands of years from now mankind will still believe in Dawkins's selfish gene theory signifies a dogmatic mindset. I think that Dawkins would agree that there was really nothing in THE SELFISH GENE, or in CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE, that was not already implicit Darwin's original version of the theory. In Kuhn's terminology, he was not trying to establish a new paradigm, just polish the one already in existence. In the interest of not being dogmatic myself, I try to be open-minded to the possibility that Dawkins might be right. But my conviction nonetheless is that he is wrong, and the evidence is really not with him.
Whenever somebody opposes the selfish-gene theory of evolution, there are always people who start ranting about how opposed true science is to the pseudo-scientific theory of Intelligent Design, as if these were the only two conceivable possibilities. It is true, as the ID people insist, that evolution is merely a theory; but gravity is merely a theory also. A theory is the best explanation scientists have for an observable fact, and evolution is just as observably factual as gravity. On the other hand, there have been several theories of gravity, which were all the best explanation thinkers had in their times for the fact of gravity. Physicists are quite confident that the current theory of gravity is unlikely to be replaced by a radically different explanation, but not many of them would dogmatically insist that this could not possibly happen. This is true because science and dogmatism are inherently antithetical.
In a brief review of THE SELFISH GENE I pointed out that Dawkins's theory implies intelligent design. I was being deliberately provocative but not facetious. Explicit in the idea of selfish genes is the idea of determinism. Given the properties of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules, and their original state of motion instigated by the Big Bang, determinism insists that nothing in the universe could have happened differently than it did. Although the indeterminism of quantum mechanics frees the universe from the clock-work determinism envisioned by nineteenth century physicists such as Laplace, since indeterministic events are blind and random, they would mostly just cancel out. A critic of this review pointed out that determinism does not mean predeterminism. What I am sure he meant by that is that it does not imply INTENTIONAL predeterminism. However, determinism clearly does mean that the events of the universe are predetermined by its initial state. Since consciousness is not an intrinsic part of the universe, the fact that the development of life intelligent enough to reflect upon its origins was a necessary consequence of these initial conditions is mere happenstance. That our existence is merely a fluke is so obviously true that to think otherwise is evidence of foggy-brained superstition.
Life relies upon the perfect meshing of highly complex and specifically-shaped molecules. Protein polymers can consist of hundreds of amino acids that must in turn fold up in unique shapes if they are to function correctly. Even just one mistake in this specific sequence means that the protein will malfunction. These proteins are in turn formed by far more complicated DNA sequences that, of course, had no idea that they were forming proteins. For even the simplest life to have formed in the first place, hundreds of these molecules had to have preformed so and interlock perfectly together in order to self-assemble into an unimaginably complex "gene machine" capable of extracting energy from its environment and replicating itself. This is the process that Michael Behe refers to as `irreducible complexity." We do not have to agree with him that this is proof of Intelligent Design, but if I ID and sheer coincidence were the only two possible choices, I would have to go with ID.
The popular explanations for how these complex molecules could have developed in a blind and random manner are frankly so laughably inept that I can scarcely believe they are intended seriously. For instance, one of them informs us that if we looked at the birthdates of thirty randomly chosen people they would form a highly specific pattern that would be nearly impossible to form by mere coincidence, and yet there it is. Of course, this pattern is not required to mesh perfectly with a random selection of birthdays of a different group of thirty people to perform a specific function. Another argument assures us that although a million monkeys randomly typing at typewriters would require far more than fifteen billion years to write one of Shakespeare's sonnets, if each correct letter the monkey happened to type was maintained in its correct position, the sonnet could be written within a few months (or whatever). This experiment has been successfully performed with computers taking the place of monkeys. If this is really supposed to be a model of how complex molecules form, it is obviously a model for Intelligent Design rather than selfish genes. Another argument is that in many cases complexity is often more obviously the result of random forces than a far simpler construct. For instance, a stone cut into the shape of a cube is far simpler than a stone shaped randomly by the forces of nature. There are two things wrong with this. One, the randomly shaped stone is not required to function perfectly with other randomly shaped stones to perform a specific task. Two, the cube could only have been shaped by highly complex organism. Better arguments than these must exist, but these are the ones available on the Internet for the public; these are the arguments that I hear from the students in my philosophy class who are sufficiently intellectual to be interested in the issue.
While Dawkins's explanations of how improbable organic structures, such as eyes and wings, are clearly brilliant, he does ignore the enormous biochemical complexity inherent in these changes. An example I often like to use is that of the fluke worm. In one phase of its life cycle the fluke inhabits ants that must be eaten by cattle. Since ants are naturally stay on the ground they would not ordinarily be ingested by cattle. In order to be sure that they get eaten, the fluke interferes with the ants' nervous system in such a way as to cause it to climb to the top of grass blades that the cattle will eat. This suicidal behavioral change would require several highly specific alterations in the ants' nervous system that must have occurred more-or-less simultaneously. This example is certainly not evidence for Intelligent Design. I at least would hope that a Supreme Intelligence capable of designing such complexity would not be responsible for something so bizarre and ugly. In fact, there is no better argument against ID than the existence of such parasites as the malarial plasmodium -- unless the Intelligence is sadistic and malevolent. But it is at least reasonable to believe that some primordial awareness must have been involved.
A universe that had no awareness of its existence would be essentially indistinguishable from non-existence. The fact that consciousness exists proves that this self-awareness existed potentially from the very beginning. Dawkins insists that this potential was accidental, while I am convinced that it was intrinsic. The overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the notion of the intrinsic existence of consciousness. However, their disagreement often seems to result from the repulsion inspired by "creation science," which is clearly dogmatic faith rather than science. On the other hand, the fact that science is only capable of exploring the physical universe does not logically lead to the conclusion that only the physical universe has real existence. If consciousness does have intrinsic existence, then it follows that evolution is not blind, but proceeds along lines leading to a level of complexity capable of self-reflection. If this is true, then evolution is at a stage where we are required to be active participants, since most people are more inclined to hide behind comforting dogmatic belief than to struggle to greater self-awareness. Dawkins is wonderfully proficient at pointing out the dogmatism of religion, but blind to the dogmatism of materialism.


 
How natural selection works *****
Climbing Mount Improbable is another first class work of popular science from Richard Dawkins, and one of two essential titles if you are planning on debating creationists - the other being The Blind Watchmaker. If you have not read the latter, I recommend you do so before tackling this one, as several themes from TBW have been taken and expanded on in this book. In many respects, Climbing Mount Improbable feels like its sequel, though it is still perfectly enjoyable in its own right.

Dawkins is fond of his metaphors, and Mount Improbable - standing for natural selection - seems to me one of his best, with the mountain peaks representing evolution's most elaborate achievements. Responding to the classic argument that those peaks - eyes, wings, lungs, etc - are too complex to have arisen naturally, Dawkins shows how it is entirely plausible for a complex organ to have evolved from small 'random' genetic changes, with each stage of development enhancing the fitness of the organism.

In the case of the eye, he takes us from a flat sheet of photosensitive cells, to a very simple cup eye, to a pinhole eye, to the eventual development of the lens, retina and iris, in a finite set of steps - each step part of a smooth and gradual path up Mount Improbable. Other chapters cover the 'miracle' of flight, the astonishing evolutionary 'thought' behind the spider's web, the handful of factors that lead to a dazzling array of mollusc shells, and a fascinating discussion on the reasons for symmetry and segmentation in animals. In each, his enthusiasm is infectious.

A couple of small downsides: the account of the Biomorph program isn't the most riveting read, and the book ends somewhat abruptly without drawing everything together. Minor niggles though, neither of which warrant a drop down to four stars. Where this book really excels is in the wide range of fascinating examples of evolution from just about every corner of the animal kingdom: from the centipede to the elephant, from the jellyfish to the peacock. Also the generous supply of illustrations - many of them drawn by Richard's wife Lalla Ward - help to break up the text. Clearly communicated as always, Dawkins's knowledge is truly encyclopaedic, and his love of the study of wildlife (and of wildlife itself) comes across on almost every page. If you haven't already, read The Blind Watchmaker. And then read this one.
 
happy book *****
I have read and loved all of Dawkin's books but what sets Climbing Mount Improbable apart is that it is a scientist sharing his sheer joy about his subject to an audience already persuaded by his arguments from earlier works. I like Dawkin's when he is grumpy but maybe even more when he's bursting with enthusiasm.
 
A fantastic insight into the hidden world around us ****
Climbing Mount Improbable is probably my favourite of Richard Dawkins' pieces on natural selection. This book stands as a testament to the absolute wonder of the natural world around us, taking the reader through several examples of the most inexplicable constructs of nature Professor Dawkins not only unveils the amazing complexity behind each, but reveals how that complexity could easily have come about by natural selection.
From the eye of a bird to the web of a spider Dawkins reveals intricacies you would never have known, from the mating rituals of some species of spiders where fly's are wrapped in webbed parcels as a gift to the female, to the amazing mimicking powers of some species of beetles to look like ants, Dawkins takes the reader on a journey with immense clarity.
The book can be heavy going sometimes, particularly when even Dawkins gift of writing cannot mask the sheer complexity of some of the pieces about the geometry of shells, for instance. That aside this book will show the reader just how amazing the natural world really is, and specifically how there was no need for a creator to instigate any of it.
 
Still Climbing ****
As elucidating today as when it was first published. Dawkins' tackling of the various 'peaks' of evolution are a delight.

A perfect starting book for anybody looking for some ideas about the marvels of evolutionary biology.
 
Laborious, boring, and discouraging. **
I abandoned this book as it is utterly boring. It is certainly not a page-turner. Its author has a patronising and discouraging attitude. He underestimates the intellect of his readers. His major fault, however, is over-elaboration and particularly when it is so unnecessary. Anyone taking up the career of biology would be best advised to avoid this book. The author's communication skill is appalling. How anyone could find the book interesting is beyond my comprehension. It almost slayed my interest in biology. On reading it, it became apparent why the used editions are low in price! My copy too will be added to this heap.
 
Simply Great *****
This book has been a wonderful lecture, for me reading Dawkins is always interesting. This book was no exception. No matter what you may read about Dawkins arguments being simplistic or about him being condescending or whatever other critics, I assure you, this book has a lot of interesting views that deserve being taken into account. What I personally like about this book (and all of Dawkins books) is that they always give me a lot to think about. It's not only what the book says, but what the book doesn't say that makes it so interesting. It's not really a matter of how good an example is to refute a creationist view, it's about a whole lot of them that are overwhelmingly numerous and imposible to print. Dawkins uses examples, just examples.

The other delight I find worth mentioning here is the analogy. I really find the analogies Dawkins uses really acute (though every now and then one can find exceptions, but no analogy can be taken farther than what it was initially conceived to). This is simply a five stars book, I won't give you a long review, I hate them, the book is great.

 
Disappointed **
I was disappointed with Climbing Mount Improbable. My assessment is not based on a particular worldview, but rather on the quality of the book. As evidenced by the many emotive reviews posted on this site, the theory of evolution is under attack on many fronts. I have followed this debate and read works from both sides of the issue

In purchasing Climbing Mount Improbable, I was seeking a book that could address recent challenges and clearly articulate the case for the current theory of evolution (random mutation and natural selection). I have an interest in zoology and found some of the author's descriptions in this area interesting and well stated. From my perspective, however, he does not address the issue of evolution in a direct or convincing manner (his overuse of simplistic and ill-fitted analogies was especially distracting)..

The book's style was condescending and self-aggrandizing. At times Dawkins digressed into what verged on a polemic against anyone that did not unquestioningly share his views and assumptions. For instance, the author poked some fun at Fred Hoyle for raising questions regarding evolution. Granted, Mr. Hoyle is a physicist and evolution is not his area of specialization. However, many of the recent challenges to evolution are also outside of Dawkins' expertise and make him susceptible to his own type of ridicule. I generally find that an argument that hinges on discrediting one's opponents is a tenuous argument.

I apologize to author's fans, but I do not recommend this book. Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God makes the case for evolution in a much clearer and convincing manner.

 
Mount Improbable Scaled! ***
If there's anything wrong with this book it's that he scaled it too much and climbed way too far for the average reader.

The first half of the book is fabulous! Some of the best writing on the subject of Darwinism and evolution ever! Very accessible and easy to understand. Especially chapters 4 and 5 give you the confidence that the next time somebody challenges evolution you have the answers to make a solid point for it. Classic Dawkins, he explains the evolution of the eye and the wing in terms anybody can understand. Using computer programs and the example of spider webs he makes solid, visual cases for natural selection. Definately applaudable.

It's the second half of the book that I had a hard time with. I feel like he delved too deep (or too high in this case) and tried to explain things that didn't need explaining and gave too many disjointed examples of what he was trying to say. In fact he threw out the whole central theme of the book - Mount Improbable - and tried to explore the idea of this multi-dimensional mathematic cube. And I'm sorry it made little sense. He should of stuck with the central theme of the book.

And where he expertly explained the eye and the wing because they are a favorite bone to pick with creationists, he went off on shells and "kaleidoscopic embryos" for no aparent purpose.

Chapter 9 was basically a super-condensed version of The Selfish Gene which I suppose he included because not everybody has read that great book. But it still seemed superfluous to the main point of the book.

He returns to his point at the end of the book thankfully but by then you feel like it should of ended a long time ago and you get the point enough to work out his final examples.

But better safe than sorry, right? It's enough that he tackled such an important issue as the improbability of evolution, using his unparalled excellence at explaining the "peaks" of "Mount Improbable" in language that everyone can understand.

 
No, no, no. It's "Quod Erat Demonstratum" *****
Don't trust someone who screws up his Latin quotes. Serious, this is a good book, but not the place to start Dawkins. Try The Selfish Gene or A Devil's Chaplain.

Tachyos.org  |  Chronon Critical Points  |  Recent Science Book Reviews