이기적 유전자

Blurb

《이기적 유전자》는 진화생물학자 리처드 도킨스가 쓴 책이다. 이 책은 진화의 주체가 인간 개체나 종이 아니라 유전자이며 인간은 유전자 보존을 위해 맹목적으로 프로그램된 기계에 불과하다고 주장하여 생물학계의 논쟁을 불러일으켰다고 흔히 알려져 있다. 그러나 이것은 불완전한 이해에 따른, 혹은 악의에 의한 왜곡에 가까우며, "30주년 기념판 서문" 에서도 밝히듯이 그런 유전자의 지배와는 별개로, 개체인 인간은 자유의지와 문명을 통하여 이런 유전자의 독재를 충분히 이겨낼 수 있다고 보고 있으며, 이런 관점은 그의 무신론 저서 《만들어진 신》을 비롯해 여러 저서에 반영되어 있다.

First Published

1976

Member Reviews Write your own review

Box304

This book is well written and makes a lot of good arguments and scenarios. I do like the author and wanted to make that point before starting. However, this book falls short in many regards. The main problem is that arguments based off of fictitious numbers will always support he who made the argument in the first place (since he chose these fictitious numbers). Ultimately, these arguments are extremely poor unless one elaborates extensively on why the numbers were chosen (which the author here does not). Another issue which I have is that author takes a few jabs at Christianity over the translation of a few words (which is another extremely poor argument). Here is the problem: take a look at the book entitle "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. If one were to attempt to make an argument against Christianity, one should attempt to refute the types of claims Lee makes in this book. You see in order for an argument to be effective one must make that argument at the underlying base as a whole in order to qualify the whole entire argument as ineffective. Attacking an argument not at the base, but at the "fingertips" with trying to attack translations (which are widely accepted as accurate) is an extremely poor argument. For instance, if I were to attack evolution (as being an origin of life theory), I would simply state that "Evolution" does not provide a rationality for how matter came into existence. This would be an argument at the base as to why "Evolution" (as an origin of life theory), is not a good theory at all (because at it's core does not explain anything at all or offer up any sort of explanation as to where matter came from). If I were to attack Islam, I would make remarks such as 1) Muhammad changed text in what was the Bible (which Revelations says not to do) 2) Muhammad claimed to be greater than Christ, who claimed to be equal with God 3) Muhammad led Holy Wars for personal gain (an attack on the prophets Character) 4) Muhammad married a wealthy widow (here seeking only personal gain) 5) Muhammad married many women (here seeking personal pleasure over the Lord) 6) Christ's followers claimed Christ resurrected from the dead, and Muhammad is still dead There are other arguments which can be made, I'm just making the point that these arguments are at the base of what the religion/theory is teaching, and that is how an effective argument is formed.

0 Responses posted in August