Dawkins and his legacy

There are many aspects to Richard Dawkins’ influence on the world of ideas such as his Selfish Gene hypothesis and the concept of memes, his popular writing about evolutionary biology, his robust opposition to Creationism and its slick cousin, Intelligent Design, his forthright atheism, and his championing of evidence-based reasoning in opposition to faith. It is thirty years since the publication of The Selfish Gene, and after a period where his reputation seemed to be on the wane, his immense contribution to evolutionary biology and his defence of science in the face of religious attack is again being recognised more widely. A book of essays, ‘Richard Dawkins - How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think’, celebrating the anniversary of ‘The Selfish Gene’ and Dawkins’ wide-ranging contribution to our intellectual life has recently been published and I’ve just received my copy. Many glittering names are represented; it’s edited by fellow Oxford biologists Mark Ridley and Alan Grafen and includes essays by Grafen, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, A C Grayling, Marek Kohn, Matt Ridley, Philip Pullman and several others.

I’ve only had time to dip into it, but am struck by Matt Ridley’s and Pullman’s essays on Dawkins’ writing – concentrating not so much on the ideas as on his writing; comprehensible, taut, expressive, architecturally structured and entertaining.

Dawkins presented a series on UK’s Channel 4 earlier this year, challenging religious faith, called ‘The Root of All Evil?’. As much as I admire his writing, I found the TV series disappointing. It confirmed my view that he communicates best when writing – the TV series was a lost opportunity to stimulate a serious debate about the harm religion can do to society. Dawkins is unable to hide his contempt for religion and for faith as a route to belief. In the TV shows, only the bishop of Oxford represented the voice of moderate tolerant religion; otherwise Dawkins’ interviewees occupied some bizarre outposts of religious fundamentalism - to be fair to him, these fanatical views are gaining more influence both in the West and in the Middle East, a desperately worrying situation. Dawkins, however, had hardly a good word to say about any form of religion and came over as rather fanatical himself, aggressive, humourless and intense. The show revealed an image of the man that repelled many thoughtful viewers. He is not at his best on camera.

But he writes like an angel. Absurdly late nights and bleary mornings are testament to the fascinating tales they weave. It is a rare treat for a non-specialist to read and enjoy a book that simultaneously entertains, educates and lays out a major scientific concept for the first time, as he does in the 'Selfish Gene'. Science isn’t done much like that these days; scientists usually express their ideas within a closed world of technical conferences and focused journals written in impenetrable jargon. Even as he flays the perpetrators of superstition and pseudoscience, he writes wonderfully well.

Philip Pullman, who, by the way, accomplishes in ‘His Dark Materials’ the rare feat of an unremittingly anti-clerical work that is also steeped in spirituality, points out three characteristics in Dawkins’ writing that make it such a joy: his gift for creating memorable and apposite phrases; the powerful and serious personality that emerges from his writing; and his genius at communicating the flavour and texture of difficult ideas by telling stories

Dawkins’ reputation as a major contributor to biology through his selfish gene framework is growing. His influence in demolishing superstition and warning us against the increasing dangers of unreasoning faith is already immense, and will become more important as the battle between reason and darkness intensifies.