252°
EXPIRED
Richard Dawkins- The Greatest Show On Earth Hardback only £5 instore at WH Smith
Richard Dawkins- The Greatest Show On Earth Hardback only £5 instore at WH Smith

Richard Dawkins- The Greatest Show On Earth Hardback only £5 instore at WH Smith

Buy forBuy forBuy for£5
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Available instore for £10 (which is still a good price) but take in one of the £5 off any book over £10 vouchers found here hotukdeals.com/vis…891 to get it for only £5, excellent price for a recently released book (the paperback out next year will retail at £8.99) BARGAIN!

642 Comments

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Did you enjoy reading the book?

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Both irritating and uninformative.

monochrome set;6223030

Both irritating and uninformative.



Seconded.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



But isn't evolution fact not theory now ?.

[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/.../richard-dawkins-greatest-show-evolution"]

Link to a review. Sounds interesting.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Maybe you would like to read Stephen Jay Gould?

monochrome set;6223253

]Link to a review. Sounds interesting.



Your link is broken.
[URL="guardian.co.uk/boo…ion"]guardian.co.uk/boo…ion

Cheers for that ,I was too busy seething.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. The fact is that organisms change over time. The (scientific) theory is the explanation that Darwin came up with.

As Richard explains, both in the States and here the theory is increasing being doubted due to mis-information. In this book Richard presents the evidence...

irrespective if you like what he has to say it is a great deal. Personally as an atheist I am pretty much with him, though to can be a bit full of himself.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Come into the 21st century, you might like it, we have rationality and science and stuff. :thumbsup:

Original Poster

why has it expired?

spruce-moose;6223996

why has it expired?



Natural selection or God's will. Take your pick.

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



Erm a theory which stands up to 150 years of rigorous testing is a little more robust than one that hasn't. Evolution has been observed directly in quick breeding animals like flies, the alternative is that dinosaur bones were put there to 'test our faith'.

No objection if anyone chooses to believe the world was created but you don't have a leg to stand on if you're looking for scientific proof.

spruce-moose;6223996

why has it expired?



yup, weird as voucher expires on 20th September...:x

Although voucher says "over £10"..., so no good

Original Poster

actually the voucher says 10 pound or over in the smallprint and i used it today with no problems whatsoever

spruce-moose;6223996

why has it expired?



I clicked expire by accident because the world is only 5000 years old.

Joking, it's because it was £12.00 online and Instore wasn't in the title when I skimmed the deal.

Sorry!

Great deal. I saw this on Saturday while picking up my Star Wars Lego (they insisted I take some sort of waste paper product with it). Saw this and thought at £10 I'd wait for the paperback. Stupid me - didn't realise they'd given me a £5 voucher in the back with my Lego.

skywalker1973;6223881

Come into the 21st century, you might like it, we have rationality and … Come into the 21st century, you might like it, we have rationality and science and stuff. :thumbsup:



Oh yeah - 21st century rationality, science and "stuff" explains why everything is so fecked up. That's evolution then is it?:?

Now use your 21st century "rationality" to explain the origin of time, the universe and anything else that exists - or appears to exist.:thinking:

Religion - if it wasn't there you'd have to invent it:p

cheapskate58;6225623

Oh yeah - 21st century rationality, science and "stuff" explains why … Oh yeah - 21st century rationality, science and "stuff" explains why everything is so fecked up. That's evolution then is it?:?



Now you've got me confused?! You're blaming the theory of evolution on stuff like the banks collapsing, and knife crime, etc, or have I read that wrong?

Surely the theory of evolution is simply concerned with how our species most likely evolved over time on this bit of rock, that's spinning around a sun, in our corner of the universe. What's going on in society generally is something entirely different I would suggest?

I'm agnostic for the record, in part because when someone of such standing as David Attenborough shares the same point of view about evolution, it makes the theory of creation look a little lacking in credibility.

The book looks interesting - thanks for posting!

Crap...

Science is virtually all theory as really only narrow mathematical propositions can be 'proved' as facts and that relies on axioms that must be assumed in the first place. Mind you that produces some pretty elegant results such as Euclid's proof of infinite primes.

As for the rest, the theories we have now are merely current and will be revised, improved or junked as other evidence and research emerges. Better theories are backed up by lots of evidence such as evolution. However, it is a nonsense to think that evolution says anything whatsoever about the beginning of life and/or the universe and the polarisation of the debate doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Richard Dawkins is clearly a very clever man and it is disingenuous of him to present the debate in such a fundamental and extremist fashion. But he makes a lot of money from it and that is a big driver for lots of people.

love dawkins , thanks to the poster .

whats the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist ? about 50 IQ points .

wearewolves;6226092

Science is virtually all theory as really only narrow mathematical … Science is virtually all theory as really only narrow mathematical propositions can be 'proved' as facts and that relies on axioms that must be assumed in the first place. Mind you that produces some pretty elegant results such as Euclid's proof of infinite primes.As for the rest, the theories we have now are merely current and will be revised, improved or junked as other evidence and research emerges. Better theories are backed up by lots of evidence such as evolution. However, it is a nonsense to think that evolution says anything whatsoever about the beginning of life and/or the universe and the polarisation of the debate doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Richard Dawkins is clearly a very clever man and it is disingenuous of him to present the debate in such a fundamental and extremist fashion. But he makes a lot of money from it and that is a big driver for lots of people.




science is virtually all fact . fact is evidence and experiments that can be observed . scientific theories explain how something works based on the facts .

Evolution explains everything about the beginning of life . the fact is we have whole industries based on the facts of evolution . genetic manipulation would not work unless all things have a common ancestor .

*Vincent*;6226066

Now you've got me confused?! You're blaming the theory of evolution on … Now you've got me confused?! You're blaming the theory of evolution on stuff like the banks collapsing, and knife crime, etc, or have I read that wrong?Surely the theory of evolution is simply concerned with how our species most likely evolved over time on this bit of rock, that's spinning around a sun, in our corner of the universe. What's going on in society generally is something entirely different I would suggest?



Well, if we evolve, we would learn from our mistakes and shi*t wouldn't happen twice. But it does: WW1-WW2-Korea-Vietnam-Afghanistan1-Iraq1-Iraq2-Afghanistan2 and any amount of conflicts in between - E.G. Rwandan genocide.

That's not evolution, it's primeval.

People confuse evolution with adaptation. When you evolve, you improve. We're regressing as a species.

God is laughing his tits off:p

cheapskate58;6226147

Well, if we evolve, we would learn from our mistakes and shi*t wouldn't … Well, if we evolve, we would learn from our mistakes and shi*t wouldn't happen twice. But it does: WW1-WW2-Korea-Vietnam-Afghanistan1-Iraq1-Iraq2-Afghanistan2 and any amount of conflicts in between - E.G. Rwandan genocide.That's not evolution, it's primeval.People confuse evolution with adaptation. When you evolve, you improve. We're regressing as a species.God is laughing his tits off:p




evolution does not work this way

if my dad read a book before i was born i would not remember the story . the information which is past on to me is purely genetic information and not social .

the problem you mention are social and not genetic , also its a mistake to think evolution has a direction , Evolution does not mean to improve .

mikie8;6226130

science is virtually all fact . fact is evidence and experiments that … science is virtually all fact . fact is evidence and experiments that can be observed . scientific theories explain how something works based on the facts .Evolution explains everything about the beginning of life . the fact is we have whole industries based on the facts of evolution . genetic manipulation would not work unless all things have a common ancestor .



Well this argument depends on the definition of fact you are using. Facts, to me, are incontrovertible such as that bridge is 100m long or today is Monday - nobody can sensibly debate the truth of these statements. However, much of science uses evidence (facts) to produce theories which can hopefully explain what we see and these theories change constantly according to the available evidence. It is the foundation of science and no serious scientist would (or could) ever seriously state that any theory is fact but rather that is best fits the evidence available.

Not sure I get your point about the beginning of life. Evolution relies obviously on the fact (!) that there is a beginning to life but not how it comes about. It is also very important to understand the distinction between genetics and evolutionary theory which although have strong links are very definitely not the same.

wearewolves;6226180

Well this argument depends on the definition of fact you are using. … Well this argument depends on the definition of fact you are using. Facts, to me, are incontrovertible such as that bridge is 100m long or today is Monday - nobody can sensibly debate the truth of these statements. However, much of science uses evidence (facts) to produce theories which can hopefully explain what we see and these theories change constantly according to the available evidence. It is the foundation of science and no serious scientist would (or could) ever seriously state that any theory is fact but rather that is best fits the evidence available.Not sure I get your point about the beginning of life. Evolution relies obviously on the fact (!) that there is a beginning to life but not how it comes about. It is also very important to understand the distinction between genetics and evolutionary theory which although have strong links are very definitely not the same.



facts and theories are different things . the facts dont change . gravitational acceleration dont change its the same fact we always had . the understanding may improve i.e measuring tools improve the measurement to a decimal point or two more but facts are facts and explain nothing .

theories put an explanation to the facts . theories do not conflict with facts but just try to explain an overall reason why the facts are true . i.e. the theory of gravity is the explanation of what gravity is but not how it interacts as that's explained but the facts .

mikie8;6226200

facts and theories are different things . the facts dont change . … facts and theories are different things . the facts dont change . gravitational acceleration dont change its the same fact we always had . the understanding may improve i.e measuring tools improve the measurement to a decimal point or two more but facts are facts and explain nothing .theories put an explanation to the facts . theories do not conflict with facts but just try to explain an overall reason why the facts are true . i.e. the theory of gravity is the explanation of what gravity is but not how it interacts as that's explained but the facts .



Gravitational theory is an excellent example of all this as Newton's theory was thought to be correct and a 'fact' for centuries until Einstein came along and showed it be incorrect and unable to describe the latest evidence (although a bloody close fit it remains and a good enough approximation to work for most astrophysics calculations).

wearewolves;6226210

Gravitational theory is an excellent example of all this as Newton's … Gravitational theory is an excellent example of all this as Newton's theory was thought to be correct and a 'fact' for centuries until Einstein came along and showed it be incorrect and unable to describe the latest evidence (although a bloody close fit it remains and a good enough approximation to work for most astrophysics calculations).



yes the theory was improved but the facts never changed . newtons measurements of the speed , acceleration and direction of gravity have not changed , these are still facts today .

the understanding of what gravity is has been improved and that is what a theory is . the theory of relativity never once mentions any maths to contradict newton it simply brings forward the idea that gravity is caused by bending of time space .

once again a theory is the explanation of the facts . a theory can not be a fact and a fact can not be a theory as they are fundamentally different things .

mikie8;6226176

evolution does not work this wayif my dad read a book before i was born i … evolution does not work this wayif my dad read a book before i was born i would not remember the story . the information which is past on to me is purely genetic information and not social .the problem you mention are social and not genetic , also its a mistake to think evolution has a direction , Evolution does not mean to improve .



Cobblers:p

To use your example, if your father could read before your were born, you would have regressed if you failed to learn to read. However, if you were able to write a story, your family unit would have evolved from readers to readers/writers and evolution would have taken place.

The readers/writers then inform and we have the beginnings of an intelligent society. That will lead to improved health, nutrition and we evolve to bigger, better creatures - evolution:p

Otherwise, you could have killed your father for inventing reading and you'd all have become the Taleban:p

mikie8;6226226

yes the theory was improved but the facts never changed . newtons … yes the theory was improved but the facts never changed . newtons measurements of the speed , acceleration and direction of gravity have not changed , these are still facts today .the understanding of what gravity is has been improved and that is what a theory is . the theory of relativity never once mentions any maths to contradict newton it simply brings forward the idea that gravity is caused by bending of time space .once again a theory is the explanation of the facts . a theory can not be a fact and a fact can not be a theory as they are fundamentally different things .



Er mikie8, I am not sure where you are going with this as you now seem to be agreeing with the points I have made in all of my posts that evolution is a theory based on evidence and as such is not a fact as you have stated previously. The only mistake you make in your last paragraph is an important one and is the thrust of the scientific method. You say that a theory is the explanation of the facts. It is in fact an explanation of the facts which may also support other theories especially when further evidence is presented.

As for the first point, the Newtonian theory of gravity was shown to be redundant when Einstein's general theory of relativity paper was published in 1916 as it explained the evidence better than Newton's theory did so General Relativity is now the dominant theory for large objects in space but as it does not explain interactions at the quantum level, science is waiting eagerly for a theory that provides a better fit with experimental observations. In the meantime Einstein rules for big objects and that is how scientific theory emerges, is accepted and is then junked in favour of better theories. None of them can be claimed as fact as you tried to do with Evolutionary theory earlier - they merely best fit the evidence available at the time.

cheapskate58;6226256

Cobblers:pTo use your example, if your father could read before your were … Cobblers:pTo use your example, if your father could read before your were born, you would have regressed if you failed to learn to read. However, if you were able to write a story, your family unit would have evolved from readers to readers/writers and evolution would have taken place. The readers/writers then inform and we have the beginnings of an intelligent society. That will lead to improved health, nutrition and we evolve to bigger, better creatures - evolution:pOtherwise, you could have killed your father for inventing reading and you'd all have become the Taleban:p



I'd love you to teach the theory of evolution, this is amazing! The big bit you are ignoring is nature vs. nurture. Evolution and adaptation are closely interlinked - adaptation to better fit your environment MAY eventually lead to evolution. Adaptations concerning the theory of evolution are biological however, not social. In your example it is only if you lacked the capacity to learn to read (say a chunk of your brain disappeared) that you would have "regressed". Generally though there is no such thing as regression in the theory, and no direction - a goldfish is just as evolved as we are. It's simply adapted to live in it's environment in the best way it can.

As for the deal, it's a good price for the book, so hot. Personally though I cannot stand Dawkins, he's a borderline fanatical atheist that sees no value in religion or belief and not a particularly good scientist as he is a serial debunker at the peril of ignoring evidence to the contrary and not willing to discuss or view it. The bias he possesses is extraordinary.
Sorry if I'm rambling, it's late

spionkop;6222669

It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either … It's a good price for a book which won't really be worth reading. Either Dawkins is a clever man who knows how to exploit a gap in the market or he's a fool who actually believes what he writes. No, I'm not a creationist, but evolution is an equally poor theory that ultimately answers nothing.



I hope you put your money where your mouth is and refuse the swine flu and season flu vaccines this year.

btw - This is a 460+ page book, hardback for £5 = bargin!

liddlefeesh;6226365

btw - This is a 460+ page book, hardback for £5 = bargin!



Excellent doorstop what has somebody's opinion of evolution got to do with accepting a vaccine?!? The creation of vaccines has little to do with evolutionary theory, and predates it quite a bit...

bishibashi;6226351

I'd love you to teach the theory of evolution, this is amazing! The big … I'd love you to teach the theory of evolution, this is amazing! The big bit you are ignoring is nature vs. nurture. Evolution and adaptation are closely interlinked - adaptation to better fit your environment MAY eventually lead to evolution.



Evolution is the non random selection working on selecting the variations within a species. Mutations which positively affect the chances of an organism to pass on its genes are selected for, and mutations which negatively affect the chances of an organism to pass on its genes are selected against. Evolution is not a state that may be led to, it just is.

bishibashi;6226351

Adaptations concerning the theory of evolution are biological however, … Adaptations concerning the theory of evolution are biological however, not social. In your example it is only if you lacked the capacity to learn to read (say a chunk of your brain disappeared) that you would have "regressed". Generally though there is no such thing as regression in the theory, and no direction - a goldfish is just as evolved as we are. It's simply adapted to live in it's environment in the best way it can.



Well said.

bishibashi;6226351

As for the deal, it's a good price for the book, so hot. Personally … As for the deal, it's a good price for the book, so hot. Personally though I cannot stand Dawkins, he's a borderline fanatical atheist that sees no value in religion or belief



He agrees that religion can provide comfort to believers but questions its truth claims. In what respect is this fanatical even slightly?

bishibashi;6226351

and not a particularly good scientist



From Wikipedia, a list of awards and recognition for the "not a particularly good scientist":

Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University[133], the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel[14], and the University of Valencia[134]. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[14] He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker.[14]

His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002)[14] and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).[135]

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[136][137] He has been short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll.[138] In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007.[139] In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[140] and was awarded the Deschner Award, named after Karlheinz Deschner.[141]

bishibashi;6226351

as he is a serial debunker at the peril of ignoring evidence to the … as he is a serial debunker at the peril of ignoring evidence to the contrary and not willing to discuss or view it. The bias he possesses is extraordinary.



Show me evidence for your claims against Dawkins that he is ignoring evidence to the contrary (to Evolution?), and provide evidence for your claim please that he has a bias.

I've read his books and he comes across as single minded, for sure - the pursuit of truth as revealed by the scientific method. What's so wrong with that?

bishibashi;6226372

Excellent doorstop what has somebody's opinion of evolution got to do … Excellent doorstop what has somebody's opinion of evolution got to do with accepting a vaccine?!? The creation of vaccines has little to do with evolutionary theory, and predates it quite a bit...



I wrote: "Swine Flu" and "Seasonal Flu", not generic "vaccine".

Now that this is out of the way; it is Phylogenetic analysis which uses the explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution and its principal of common descent in order to determine the most appropriate future (and often currently not-existing) viral forms.

Without the Theory of Evolution and the body of evidence which supports it, we would not have the principal of common descent and hence no mechanism to determine the evolution of influenza viruses, and hence, no flu vaccines.

I'm well versed in the whole theory, and possess a degree in Biological Science. I'm also agnostic. Just putting that in for extra information about me really, and in relation to my opinions on Richard Dawkins By contrary I did not mean evolution: I meant contrary to his own beliefs. He has also ascribed religion to suicide bombings and wars - religion did not do these things, people did. People possess the capacity for atrocity regardless of belief.

I stand by my comment that I think he is a poor scientist, though he is obviously a popular and recognised one as shown by those awards (I am not ignorant of these facts, and have read numerous books by him). This stems from his philosophical attitude towards science: you should not be biased, which he blatantly is as his agenda is to disprove anything remotely numinous. Science is the testing of hypothesis through objective fact, to either disprove a theory or show that the evidence gathered supports it. He has actively ignored and refused to look at evidence for things that do not fit his paradigm (for example, Sheldrake's work on ESP, which he wrote about ]here). He appears as some sort of atheist crusader, which takes precedence over scientific method. In other words, the pursuit of HIS truth using his own selectively scientific method: a poor scientist.

There are numerous websites displaying the flaws on Dawkins books and methods, unfortunately many of these are biased in the complete opposite direction and label him as the Antichrist :? However, there are many other good sites that can be found through google without a religious agenda. A good debate was featured in the Fortean Times regarding his poor scientific method, but I cannot put my hands on them without waking people up! This might act as a summary to the anti-Dawkins position, and may phrase it more eloquently than myself ]CLICKY.

Again sorry for length and any rambling, late.

liddlefeesh;6226381

I wrote: "Swine Flu" and "Seasonal Flu", not generic "vaccine". Now that … I wrote: "Swine Flu" and "Seasonal Flu", not generic "vaccine". Now that this is out of the way; it is Phylogenetic analysis which uses the explanatory power of the Theory of Evolution and its principal of common descent in order to determine the most appropriate future (and often currently not-existing) viral forms.Without the Theory of Evolution and the body of evidence which supports it, we would not have the principal of common descent and hence no mechanism to determine the evolution of influenza viruses, and hence, no flu vaccines.



Apologies, yup phylogenetics are used to predict potential future virus forms. However it is not the only tool used, and there are many alternatives to using phylogenetics as it is not the most reliable methodology for large scale production of of an effective vaccine. Vaccinations tend to be created and mass produced for existing forms, through sampling and utilising laboratory sample viral forms to create specific and effective vaccines. The theory of evolution is fantastic in my opinion regarding the variety of life on earth, however I do agree with spionkop that ultimately it answers nothing in terms of origins and creation.

Voted Cold due to the fact that Dawkins only ever presents unproven and unfounded lies based on his own assumptions.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text