I am far from agreeing with everything Dennett says, even in this book, but "if you read just one book on evolution...", this is my vote. He paints the picture in its starkest terms, and is very, very, very smart. Also a fine writer, and funny. He has a gift for side-stepping debates that have become jargon-laden. This means you have to think when you read him, because the terms of the discussion are not those of the last seven articles you read; you have to do the translating as you go. Dennett's distinction between cranes and skyhooks alone is a meme that will (I hope) live a long and happy life. Note though, he is a philosopher and not strictly speaking an evolutionary biologist. For my money this is perfectly fine, and Dennett goes out of his way to get his scientific street-cred, so it does not justify any slams of the book; but readers might want to know what the author's bona fides are.

As to his polemics: Despite his anti-religious aniumus, Dennett is for the most part more even-handed here than in some of his later more expressly antireligious work. This is not to say that his engagements with religion, or ethics, or even philosophy of mind, in this book are of the same level of sophistication as his accounts of evolutionary theory; but he does a fine job of laying out the implications of a hard-core Darwinist position, in a manner that is solid, careful, and hard-hitting. As has been noted by other reviewers, Dennett includes some swipes at Stephen Jay Gould which might seem distracting to one not privy to the background. I suspect much of it hinges upon Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria," the idea that science does not have the final say in matters of values, ethics, the arts, and indeed in metaphysics and religion; but that neither can any other discourse legitimately trespass on science's grounds. This means, for instance, that whether the Pope or William Jennings Bryan likes it or not, science has the last word as to whether the Earth rotates the sun or vice-versa, and as to whether homo sapiens and the bonobo chimp share a common ancestor; but that science has nothing to say about whether it is right or wrong to pick your neighbor's pocket or cut his throat. Dennett clearly disagrees both with the notion of circumscribing science's application (he argues that there is indeed a pertinent evolutionary ethics), and he more or less accused Gould of hypocrisy and pandering to religion, pulling his punches. I find this lamentable because it (to my mind) needlessly over-states the alleged incompatibility between the findings of science and those discourses by which we ask more ultimate questions; and there will be plenty on the other side to take him at his word. That Dennett does *not* pull his punches thus turns out to be a bit of an ambiguous virtue. But the force with which he states his position clearly indicates what Dennett feels to be the stakes. Even if, like me, you disagree, the book will force you to make clear to yourself what those stakes are. ( )

Dopo aver faticosamente raggiunto l'ultima pagina de "Il cigno nero", saggio inutilmente pretenzioso il cui autore sembra considerarsi l'unico agente razionale in un mondo di poveri idioti, ecco una boccata d'ossigeno.
Straordinariamente colto, ironico, preparatissimo, Dennet accompagna il lettore in un viaggio dove scienza e filosofia, biologia e spiritualità si intrecciano, dove l'argomentazione rigorosa si accompagna sempre alla voglia di capire e farsi capire. La sintesi migliore attualmente in commercio dei concetti fondamentali del darwinismo e delle loro conseguenze. ( )

Complex and Entertaining: While Dennett comes off, at times, sounding pompous and headstrong, that may simply be because he is, in my opinion, correct about certain aspects of the human mind's ability to cope with conflicting beliefs. My personal religious beliefs aside, I do feel that, at a point, religion and evolutionary science do come into direct conflict. Some of Dennett's thoughts and ideas, in conjunction with Dawkins's ideas, can run a little wayward of what I would call science, but simply because the ideas are blended with speculation and opinion. For further reading on the evolutionary perspective of religious thought, I would recommend Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer. Again, I really enjoyed the book, my personal disagreements notwithstanding.

Wonderful book shedding a objective look at evolution. To be fair, Dennet does a nice job of explaining what evolution and natural selection is and what it is not. His compare and contrast with God is not on the same level of sophistication. ( )

Cranes or skyhooks? I'm an unabashed crane man myself.

Dennett explores the wider implications of Darwin's theory of natural selection. We get lucid summaries of the current debates on Natural Selection as a logical algorithm or philosophical approach, we are introduced to the mindboggingly complex library of Mendel and a quick tour of many of the biological challenges to Darwin's ideas and why they are now disregarded, finally a section on mind, meaning, maths and morality which is incredibly thought provoking.

Dennett's style is careful and deliberate with as much thought given to the structure of his argument as the style of his prose. This is fortunate as he tackles some areas of thought in which it would be very easy to lose your way. I read this book a little while ago whilst on holiday and would recommend taking it in in fairly big chunks otherwise you will yourself having to constantly recap his complex arguments.

In fact it's so good - you don't even mind that a lot of what he covers is actually philosophy.

Ultimately Dennett aims o show that Darwin's theory and everything it tells us about the world around us is life affirming and how it can help to bring meaning to life.

A cracking good read. ( )