Inspired by the frequently asked question, "Why do you bother getting up in the morning?" following publication of his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins sets out determined to show that understanding nature's mechanics need not sap one's zest for life. Alternately enlightening and maddening, Unweaving the Rainbow will appeal to all thoughtful readers, whether wild-eyed technophiles or grumpy, cabin-dwelling Luddites. Excoriation of newspaper astrology columns follow quotes from Blake and Shakespeare, which are sandwiched between sparkling, easy-to-follow discussions of probability, behaviour and evolution. In Dawkins' world (and, he hopes, in ours), science is poetry; he ends his journey by referring to his title's author and subject, maintaining that "A Keats and a Newton, listening to each other, might hear the galaxies sing." --Rob Lightner, Amazon.com

Dawkins cites Thomas Huxley's ["Darwin's Bulldog"] assessment of science as "organised common sense" as but a first step in explaining what science reveals. Expanding on Huxley, the American Lewis Wolpert, argues that Nature is full of surprises and paradoxes. A glass of water may contain a molecule of Shakespeare's last cup of tea. Our credulity at seemingly inexplicable coincidences, our "gasps of awe" at the tricks "psychics" and other charlatans play on us, and our adherence to the teachings of "mystics" and other mountebanks may lie in the habits developed when we lived on the savannah. Dawkins urges us to recognise that science, unlike religion or quack medicine, does not aim to deceive us. Quite the reverse. Science, in stripping away mythologies, reveals new forms of stunning beauty.

It may seem paradoxical that Nature's wonders can be explained through barcodes, but Dawkins manages it with his usual panache. In this case, he demonstrates how the familiar stripes on commercial products have natural equivalents. "Barcodes in the Stars" are the analytical tools known as Fraunhofer lines which impart so much information about those distant nuclear furnaces. Many experiments we cannot stage on this planet are taking place within distant stellar globes. The forces, temperatures and atomic reactions exceed anything we can duplicate, but the "barcodes" are precise records of these events. These "barcodes" are the result of Newton's early discovery of sunshine being "unwoven" into a spectrum. We've also learned how the elements making up our bodies come from those pinpricks in the darkness.

Part of Dawkins' role as a conveyor of "Public Understanding of Science" is the contending with mis-applications and abuses of science. Dawkins has long campaigned against the "hijacking" of science to confuse and distract the public from what science really does. He's firmly set against the notion that "science destroys beauty", but he's equally adamant against "bad poetry of science". He's rightfully scornful of Teilhard de Chardin's fumbling mysticism of early in the last century. Anyone thinking the Jesuit's approach is "ancient history" need only glance at some of the recent submissions on these pages. A more advanced, if less innocuous thesis, according to Dawkins, is the transmutation of James Lovelock's Gaia concept by "New Age" advocates. Dawkins concedes the Gaia concept is appealing in that it grants all life validity. Destruction of habitats and ecosystems is appallingly wasteful. However, he argues, until we abandon "wishy-washy" views of how species interact, we will never approach the solutions to our exterminations of life realistically.

There are solid reasons for advocating this as the best of Dawkins' efforts. He addresses many issues of deep concern to us all. Is there a solution to the destruction of the environment by our species? How does life truly operate and must we all tramp back to university to learn its arcane mechanisms? What do we truly know about our world and the universe it occupies? More important to many, will learning what makes up the rainbow remove our feeling of its beauty? While it's tempting to answer those questions here, it's far better for you to pick up this book and derive the answers yourself. You won't be disappointed by what you read. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]


A worthy goal... unfulfilled   June 6, 2004
 33 out of 39 found this review helpful

Dawkins tends to set up a dialectic in his books - its always science versus religion and if I had to choose a side I would be on the former whole heartedly which I feel I should make clear first of all.

The idea of this book is to show that there is more wonder in the reality of science than there is in mysticism and delusion. I believe in that wholeheartedly as do most scientists I imagine. The problem is Dawkins intolerance of antiscientific views is not an embracing philosophy but an exclusionist one that makes books such as this difficult. The frequent quotes from romantic poets such as Blake and Keats does little to turn the text in to much of a symphony. There is much of interest here. The discussion of skinner boxes and pigeon behaviour are informative and incredibly amusing. If you see someone doing something odd because he thinks its lucky and will make his favourite team win - you cant call him brainless - he is at least as intelligent as a pigeon (but maybe not much more so)

Sadly it also becomes apparent that although Dawkins knows a fair amount of physics it is not his forte. He is a biologist and seems out of his depth talking about quantum mechanics and particle physics. Now that is not to say that what Dawkins tries to do is impossible, Carl Sagan does it marvellously and books such as Pale Blue Dot and Cosmos do what Dawkins attempts here.

There is a lot of interesting information here but the recurrence of poets and their poetry only distracts from the science. Dawkins has been so long on the defensive regarding evolution and defending science against irrationality ('intelligent design' for example) that he is left eminently unsuitable for an embracing, populist view of the wonder of science. A humorous book which does exactly such a thing is the 'Can Reindeer Fly' subtitled the science of Christmas by Roger Highfield. The science of Star Trek by Krauss does the same sort of thing for the sci-fi fans.

A noble effort from Dawkins but its best to stick to his insightful and fascinating explorations of neodarwinism such as the selfish gene, climbing mount improbable etc. Worth reading, but the book does not seem to accomplish its goals. There is much wonder in science but look for a less angry author to reveal it to you.