[Closed] Dawkins - Book suitability for early teen?

Flicked through it at a friend's house - she'd bought it for her kids.

I was somewhat disappointed, having read his other stuff. I realise it's for kids, but, I dunno, I'd probably stop by a bookshop and have a look if I were considering it. There was just something about it - not sure youngsters are his best audience.

Why not read it yourself then judge whether it is for your son? That might be a responsible approach to providing him with (possibly controvertial) views on the big issues in life.

It's a fantastic book that should be part of the National Curriculum.

why not give it to your kid and let them decide ?

not sure youngsters are his best audience.

Sorry DD, but you couldn't be further off the mark. EDIT - I think he puts scientific values across in an entertaining and digestible way for the younger reader.

He's so divisive a character I'm not surprised he's got some negative reviews! The majority seem to be very positive though. I've only just ordered a copy myself so can't comment personally.

Obviously, I'll have a good look through - just wondered what views others may have formed.

based on the publishers info, and positive reviews, it looks to be excellent.

Not sure how much weight to put on the negative reviews because of Dawkins' ability to provoke highly polarised opinions

ETA

He's so divisive a character I'm not surprised he's got some negative reviews!

Exactly!!!

the god delusion annoyed me as it was just a repetitive rant. I agree with him and still felt that he was pushing his views too far down my neck.

It's a shame that the cause of atheism has to have such a twit as it's evangelist 😉

I hope it's better than the God Delusion.

HOWEVER, the negative reviews on amazon (which I tend to go to first...!) are a little off-putting.

Hmmm... 7 1-star reviews, 57 5-star.

Looking at the comments on the 1-star reviews and some of them admit they haven't actually read the book!

based on the publishers info, and positive reviews, it looks to be excellent.

Not sure how much weight to put on the negative reviews

So - you've decided you like it then 😐

I'm with DD on this one. Having had (only) a "look inside" it doesn't srike me as being able to even hold a child's attention, let alone capture their imagination.

Having said that, Dawkins does my nut in a bit anyway (and I'm a scientist and atheist.)

It's ok deluded, no need to apologise, you're allowed to be mistaken.

Anyway, I think his ideas should be heard by youngsters, but I don't think his style in the book was that good.

Maybe get Richard Hammond to write it instead?

Just about finished reading it now. I like it; some nice illustrations of the span of time involved in evolution, etc.

Each chapter begins with some examples of myths from different religions on the topic, followed by the scientific explanation of the same topic. I think it'd have been a better book without the myths.

Whether it's suitable for a 12-year-old depends on the 12-year-old 🙂

not sure if that's what a 12 year old would want to read, as it would be a bit like being lectured to by the spotty kid that nobody likes, who wears a bow tie, and is an expert on everything.

Why not get him something fun to read, that will not put him off books for life.

So - you've decided you like it then

No - I've decided that it looks interesting - potentially a good present...

Miss Gwaelod (12) got this in her xmas stocking..she read it cover to cover in a week and still raves about it - particularly the illustrations. Re the Richard Hammond comment above - she's also read and enjoyed Hammond's Can you feel the force, but rates Dawkins book as better.

proselytising (?) is irritating, regardless of the cause being pushed/attacked

haven't read it, mind

Those that flick, have a fleeting glimpse, a quick look, partial gaze or only read the dust cover ought to read the whole thing perhaps - how's that for a scientific, consider everything approach?

Miss Gwaelod (12) got this in her xmas stocking..she read it cover to cover in a week and still raves about it

I suspect that my son would be the same...

Ok, so not Richard Hammond...James May?

If you want a scientific approach, then you need to get 12 year olds to read the book and tell you what they think.

If you want a scientific approach, then you need to get 12 year olds to read the book and tell you what they think.

You need to get a lot of 12-year-olds to read the book and average out the responses.

Whatever happened to Johnny Ball anyway?

It is a good read and am sure he will enjoy it. If he is old enough to absorb some of what it says then he is no doubt mature enough to appreciate the views presented and their basis.

Personally I enjoyed 'the selfish gene' more, but that may just pertain to my personal taste.

Grizia.

Agreed - perhaps advocate to them that they should apply themselves to it contents with a bit more application and rigour than a superficial analysis.

Is Dawkins the guy that shagged Mr Garrison when he was a woman?

Jesus, someone's got literal ants in his pants today. 😐 (metaphor)

Jesus, someone's got literal ants in his pants today. (metaphor)

Johnny Ball started ranting about climate change being nonsense and then everyone started ignoring him. Look at his blog:
http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/html/johnnysblog.html

Nice idea for a present. From the look inside, seems well written and better than the adult books which for all his self-publicy are disappointingly written IMO. Never harms to read and question and much better than a PS3 etc!! Lucky 12-year old to have sensible, thoughtful parents.

Critical thought is the most imp part of education imo.

edit for Xpost: HH - thanks for the link, another example of importance of critical thought not following the crowd !! 😉

How about you tell them a story about a guy who died a few years ago, only to turn into a zombie and rise from the dead? Also add he could perform magic tricks, and was his own father.

Suddenly a Dawkins' book looks a very sensible alternative...

Great link HH, thanks.

If only we lived in a more rational world, then perhaps Dawkins wouldn't need to be such a zealot.

I thought the Blind Watchmaker was very good. It might be a little over his head at 12 but I don't think that's such a bad thing if he's interested enough to give it a read.

How about you tell them a story about a guy who died a few years ago, only to turn into a zombie and rise from the dead? Also add he could perform magic tricks, and was his own father.

🙄

Suddenly a Dawkins' book looks a very sensible alternative...

Yes, pretending that (more than) a few years ago we were once a fish or some such that over time magically (and very conveneiently for all God-deniers) turned into a human being is an entirely sensible suggestion.

😉

Yes, pretending that (more than) a few years ago we were once a fish or some such that over time magically (and very conveneiently for all God-deniers) turned into a human being is an entirely sensible suggestion.

There is just so much wrong with this post - except for the 😉

I conclude, having read this thread so far, that 1: "joao3v16" knows absolutely nothing about evolution (but thinks s/he's clever) and that 2: not all 12 year olds are the same (shock!!)...

I've read a few of Dawkins books and wasn't really a fan of his style. While very readable they often tended towards very one sided rants, particularly the god delusion. I'm not sure how these would be taken by a younger reader, might want something more balanced if you intend to open their mind to curiosity.

The new scientists books might be quite good - "why don't penguins feet freeze?" "does anything eat wasps?"

I wouldn't challenge him with one of Dawkins' heavier duty books - his choice if he want to go further and read at a later date.

They do seem to get religion pushed at them at school as if it were factual, which I do have an issue with. No problem with the teaching of religion(s), but it needs to be in the context of "belief" and "social history"

Yes, pretending that (more than) a few years ago we were once a fish or some such that over time magically (and very conveneiently for all God-deniers) turned into a human being is an entirely sensible suggestion.

Is this meant to be ironic?

Is this meant to be ironic?

I assumed so - benefit of doubt and all that...