A Devil’s Chaplin. Richard Dawkins. Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2003, pp.264, £16.99.

This is a book that should be read by all young scientists in the summer before they begin their A-levels even though, like me, they may disagree with parts of it.

Richard Dawkins is a wise and witty Welshman who, like Dylan Thomas, continues to flee the Hound of Heaven – with advantage. I am still afraid to ask him questions at lectures because he does not suffer fools gladly and we can all be fools.

He does not have the breadth of J.B.S. Haldane but like Gavin de Beer he can lead one to intellectual cliffs worth an uncomfortable climb. This collection of essays reveals as much about the man as about his subject, and he would despise anyone attempting to support the anthropocentric development of the universe.

He begins by clearly supporting the Darwinian mechanism but stands up for a human negation of the innate crudities of life that are its life blood and which, if missing, would result in the ending of life on earth. To be alive, one must pay with pain and death. His starkness makes me uneasy but usefully so. Clearly his scientific Truth is the only one that enhances survival but truth for the fox is not truth for the hunter, and for the many who cannot appreciate scientific truth their lesson truths are the only means by which they can be comforted. Pseudo-philosophy here is simply dangerous nonsense at best. This is an angry, clear thinking man and I do so agree that much of American scientific writing is so befuddled by current French intellectualism it is hardly worth buying their text-books. He does overshoot however. I and the biologists I know have always taught with evolution as the central theme (some have deviated to ecology). Back in ‘45-46’ I was taught in the same way by a delightful Sam Weller.

Dr Dawkins praises Charles Darwin as a supremely great man. He was a good hands-on scientist but I personally think his grandfather Erasmus had the greater mind. Incidentally, humans have not lost their hair. Per square inch, it is denser than a chimpanzee but the shaft diameter is much thinner. Dawkins and Gould quarrel over the information content of the genome and the degree of integration within that system. This will be exposed fairly quickly by fact and not theory.

Memes are an interesting concept and Dawkins cannot bear the religious megamemes which he believes generate most wars. He does not consider the enormous evolutionary selection pressure that selects for that meme. We all die alone with hearing as our last worldly contact to face the common illusion of the tunnel and the garden beyond. Without that illusion (if it is so) communities would be constantly depressed and a prey to any outsider. We seem to be the only species to suffer self-awareness on a grand scale. It may not have a long-term evolutionary advantage. Even ants have reached an agricultural stage without it! I cannot see a great disadvantage in believing in something supra-sentient. Translate it as you like.

The later essays become more personal and the author’s humanity shines out first in lamentations for lost friends, then a fencing match with his friend/enemy S.J. Gould and finally a letter to his daughter; one which we all give but which is usually ignored as they explore the world for themselves. Richard Dawkins calls himself a Darwinian-freak, but when faced with the Creationists more power to his arm. We can argue the details later.

Patrick F. James