What is your opinion on Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene"?

[Primal]

Personally, I think it's an extremely arrogant book. But what do you think?

Richard Dawkins is definitely a great writer for sure. Very entertaining.

[Shiranu]

It's been awhile since I read it, but from what I remember...

I view it (and him) much like I do Neil DeGrasse Tyson... when they are talking strictly about science, their field of expertise, I think they are both wonderful at explaining the beauty of science to people who are not as interested in the subject as them.

However when they start to speak of fields they aren't qualified in, I find they quickly get incredibly arrogant for how simplistic their views tend to be - particularly in regards to subjective concepts.

The two of them once sat before a crowd of college students and told them, "If you are pursuing a liberal arts degree in like, philosophy or history... you are wasting a good brain." and even as an atheist that one really rubbed me the wrong way and made me lose a massive amount of respect for the two of them.

But again, in terms of the science stuff? Great book, really enjoyed the objective truths and interesting science facts he had to share.

[Hydra009]

Personally, I think it's an extremely arrogant book. But what do you think?

Richard Dawkins is definitely a great writer for sure. Very entertaining.

Years ago, I saw a guy pay for his food with his watch and was almost certain it was magic, so I dunno what sort of scientific analysis you're expecting.

I read the book in question, I thought it was interesting and entertaining and didn't think much more about it.

I couldn't say if Dawkins was arrogant since I don't know much about the guy, though I have seen that famous clip of him meeting Creationist Wendy Wright, so I dunno, maybe a little arrogance might be justified.  He's published in scientific publications and she's...she's really...really passionate about bronze-age mythology and talking at people.  Very quick thinker, too.  Not accurate, but very quick.  Dealing with creationists over decades like he has is bound to take a toll.

But to be more on topic, I will say that I think that a gene-centered view of evolution (organisms as the vehicles for genes rather than the other way around) is an intriguing idea.  If it is completely scientifically accurate, that's well above my pay grade.

[Primal]

Years ago, I saw a guy pay for his food with his watch and was almost certain it was magic, so I dunno what sort of scientific analysis you're expecting.

I read the book in question, I thought it was interesting and entertaining and didn't think much more about it.

I couldn't say if Dawkins was arrogant since I don't know much about the guy, though I have seen that famous clip of him meeting Creationist Wendy Wright, so I dunno, maybe a little arrogance might be justified.  He's published in scientific publications and she's...she's really...really passionate about bronze-age mythology and talking at people.  Very quick thinker, too.  Not accurate, but very quick.  Dealing with creationists over decades like he has is bound to take a toll.

But to be more on topic, I will say that I think that a gene-centered view of evolution (organisms as the vehicles for genes rather than the other way around) is an intriguing idea.  If it is completely scientifically accurate, that's well above my pay grade.

It has to be scientifically accurate. DNA is everything. Strength coaches see this in young athletes. You put two kids of the same age in the same exact training program and they end up different performers. Even their diets are the same.

Is there really a good alternative explanation? That life starts with a conscious soul and uses the DNA as its tool for development and action?