Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watch Maker

  • More Options

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 8.8/10 (74 votes cast)
Is This Documentary Broken?
(Click Here To Let Us Know)

One of the earliest efforts from Richard Dawkins in his identification and attack on the rise of creationism with the rising star of the US fundamentalist christian demographic. In the important documentary, Dawkins shows ways to easily refute some of the more common creationist arguments.

Dawkins begins with the question, “Did everything in Creation fall together by chance or was there an intelligent designer like God?” He then looks at the spreading disaffection with Darwinism and argues that it should not be written off as a worn out declaration of scientific faith.

Whilst this is an aging documentary, it was an important key step in the growing assertion of science as the ONLY paradigm worthy of consideration to a highly developed species.

Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watch Maker, 8.8 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

Related Documentaries

From The Web

  • BPM

    Masterful, of course.

  • Matt

    At the end it looks like he’s not wearing any pants. If there were a zeitung in his hands it would be pretty funny. like hes on the loo or something. An overall brilliant documentary anyway. Informative and entertaining, even after so many years.

    • Angelica Guerrero

      Haha, it totally does!

  • http://blogtext.org/blake7ward/ Rainier

    that’s a great post dude good work

  • Meph

    A great documentary. And It has aged well.

  • Meph

    A great documentary. And It has aged well.

  • http://www.buybacklinkservices.com Backlinks

    Love this movie.

  • Garythenotrashcougar

    Terrific documentary, don’t be put off by the age, the ideas are still very relevant. 

  • Garythenotrashcougar

    Terrific documentary, don’t be put off by the age, the ideas are still very relevant. 

  • Garythenotrashcougar

    Terrific documentary, don’t be put off by the age, the ideas are still very relevant. 

  • Rebeltz2010

    Top stuff! this guy is a genius to say the least, amust view classic!!

  • Fred Bazzeeda

    Richard Dawkins is god!
    :o)

  • Chikkuboy

    He seems to me as an intelligent fool. Even if, through cumulative selection if a being found the better eye, how does he think that information is passed from one generation to other generation? decoded in genes in a sperm of an eyeless male being?? And that information in that genes should be in harmony with information in the genes of an egg from an entirely different(female) being without eye. 
    Can you make a watch using the cumulative selection? Creating all the wheels, arms, springs, nuts and bolts? Human eye itself is more complex than a watch. It is absolutely impossible to make a perfect complex human being without an intelligent designer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/robin.forward Robin Forward

      Nice crazy rant there mate, well done (fuking nut). Btw evolution without intelligent design is quite possible, considering the amount of evidence that supports it. Compared to intelligent design which is supported by NO evidence and requiring blind faith, you don’t really have a leg to stand on do you.

      • JustAThought

         Well he wouldn’t know because he has no eyes either. He is in fact the Blind Argument Caster.

    • Centaur2001

      God was the hand maiden of enoulutionary process .

      • JustSaying

         No ,No he wasn’t. And incidentally,you don’t sound intelligent at all with that comment.

      • Reasonable

        I can tell you know a lot about the topic.

    • Teddy

      “how does he think that information is passed from one generation to
      other generation? decoded in genes in a sperm of an eyeless male being??”

      Encoded, but generally yes – or the egg of an eyeless female being.

      “And that information in that genes should be in harmony with information
      in the genes of an egg from an entirely different(female) being without
      eye. ”

      The best available gene from each parent will be selected gradually over time, individual children may use either gene and have it work or not for them to a varying degree. Which in turn decides whether those children will pass that gene to their children on or die before they can. Eventually resulting in the fully formed animals (and humans) you see today.

    • Anonymous

      This argument has it backwards. Of course, looking back from the present to the past, the present state of biological organism’s look irreducibly complex but this is on its head. Say a group of people shuffle a pack of cards and deal them out and record the order that the cards fall. Then I claim that the chances of that particular order of cards falling is infinitismal does this prove that there was intelligent design behind the order of the cards? Of course not, it just demonstrates the fallacy of trying to deduce probability from the present to the past. The chances of the cards falling in that particular order is extraordinarily unlikely and yet the cards did fall that way

    • TalkingSnakesIndeed

       And with that almost incoherent response you have proven his point. Just because you can’t fathom the reality behind genetic information being passed from generation to generation through the mechanism of DNA and yes,genes, does not make what he has said wrong at all. An eyeless male or an eyeless female actually disproves you theory of an intelligent designer. In fact, since these defects occur, either your imaginary god is not all powerful or he is,in fact,an asshole. A watch can be made over and over ad infinitude and every watch will look and work exactly the same. If there is a defect in a particular watch, then that would be proof that mankind who made the watch is indeed fallible and therefore not a god. But every human is different even though we supposedly come from the same blueprint.(that would be the merging of a male sperm and a females egg) And the fact that this can occur shows that the female is NOT an altogether different being. And since there are innumerable defects in the process shows that if there were a creator as you say then he is also not infallible and therefore is not god.
      I know you have been trained to say that God makes us the way we are on purpose. If that is so, then this creator is also malevolent and as such is not God. I could continue on for an entire book here, though I will not. You must be one of your gods mistakes however since he has obviously handicapped you with a smaller than average intellect and as such I shall take pity on you and not tear your tiny little world apart. Enjoy living in that fantasy you call divine worship but know that in the end, you will die and you will decompose,and there will be no God to bring you home to your mansion. Awfully arrogant of you to believe that. Apparently you aren’t even worthy of your creator until he has made you suffer first. So apparently he is a sociopath as well. I suppose i should expect no less from a deity who raped a woman and then left another man to raise his child so he could watch it be tortured and ridiculed to death on a tree. Great guy you got there as your hero FOOL.

  • Vegas

    There obviously is no god. If there was he would have intelligently designed some better intro music.

  • Agnostic

    Dawkins is as ignorant as the fundamentalist creastionists he dislikes. I hate the people that follow him blindly without seeing how dogmatic and ignorant he is.

    • Fred Bazzeeda

      care to point out your claims on this? your statement could have more validity if you can put forth a proper argument based upon facts and research.

    • Reasonable

      You are as ignorant as the fundamentalist creationists he dislikes.

  • Anonymous

    Brilliant.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Deville/1152835743 Aaron Deville

    How simple life must be for you? theres not much point in life if we were just made to pray to a god, and not have to think how we have come to exist,

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Deville/1152835743 Aaron Deville

    im so glad wear i live in devon uk, there are only 2 open churches now as over 12 of them have closed in the last 7-8 years, and i dont think i no any one that is religious now, i think the end is near for religioun in the S/W

    • ConnecticutYankee

       I think perhaps you should take those empty churches and open some schools. Judging from your atrocious bastardization of the English language, I think you are in need of them.
      Damn it man, you are a native born ENGLISHMAN. You guys invented the damn language. You should learn how to use it properly.

  • Mychael Darklighter

    this was rather depressing, actually.

    depressing that pro-creationists are offering up the same debunked arguments 40-ODD YEARS LATER!!!

    no wonder he won’t condescend to ‘debate’ jeremy hovind or ray comfort.
    like i said though; it’s depressing they should even be asking, still.

    cut out the line about the ‘optical disk’ being ‘completely up-to-date’, + this show could be run today, unaltered. =0(

    • MrWhitelighter

       Would that be pro-creationists as opposed to amateur creationists? I’m thinking you’re on to something there. People like Kent Hovind,you know that creationist who is in prison for stealing money from his church as well as tax evasion? And then there is Pat Robertson who tells people to divorce their spouses when they have terrible accidents and need lifelong care. Or perhaps Jimmy Swaggart, the gentleman who ranted and raved about unclean people and then got caught with a prostitute. No wait. I know,it must be Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. Too bad they got caught stealing from their church too. That poor dog of theirs can’t live in that 250,000 dollar doghouse anymore. Guess he’ll have to rough it on the streets next to the poor and homeless that money could have gone to feed. But I suppose we shouldn’t judge a god by his  representatives on earth right? He probably just made a mistake or two with them. So I guess he can’t actually be a god then. I agree with you on the Ray Comfort thing too.
      Remember their argument about the crocoduck? Well I wonder why they never mentionad the Platypus. Got a Ducks bill, Fur like a mink, Poisoned spikes like a snake, tail like a Beaver, Lays eggs like a turtle and yet suckles it’s young like humans. There you go Ray. That beats the hell out of your crokoduck. And your argument is invalid. Please go shoot yourself and take that pathetic failed actor with you. I’m convinced they are both gay and are too scared to admit it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.smithson1 Benjamin Smithson

    chikkuboy who said the human eye was perfect ? seems to me that it is still improving , evolving. the eye is only complex to us, compared to all of natures ways its just another amazing out come of millions and millions of mistakes  

    • TheCredibleHulk

       Not too mention how vulnerable it is too infection and injury. And then there is that pesky problem of only being good for seeing the tiniest portion of the entire spectrum of light. But I suppose god meant to do that so we couldn’t see the rest of his mistakes.

  • S. Miller

    It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation. What a slap in the face to an amazing, loving Creator it is to not recognize design. The Bible holds everything you need to know and Israel is Gods timepiece. Read Late Great Planet Earth and the promise by Hal Lyndsey.

  • The only mac guy here

    Will not play on mac?