




































Untitled


DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

236 

          Article 
 

Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden:  
On Winning by Cheating 

 
Robert Campbell * 

 
ABSTRACT 

Dawkins attacks the idea that evidence against the Darwinian paradigm implies that unusual 
features in nature must be perfect from the outset in order for them to work. The example that a 
specific wasp is attracted to an orchid the shape and smell of a female wasp can be explained by 
gradual steps, since appearance can vary with distance and angle and so could  converge to the 
size and shape of a female wasp over time. However a wasp cannot mate from a distance so there 
could be no selection pressure and the orchid would somehow have to strike upon just the right 
smell from an unlimited variety of odors in a single mutation together with mutations in concert 
to achieve the right shape and size. Similar arguments about honey bees and the evolutions of 
eyes would require multiple mutations in concert to produce selection pressure. All of this argues 
strongly against rare random mutations and natural selection as the sole evolutionary mechanism.   
 
Key Words: Charles Darwin, Theory of Evolution, Cosmic Order, intellegent direction, 
spirituality, atheist, Richard Dawkins. 
 
River Out Of Eden – Ch. 3 - Do Good By Stealth: 
  
Double speak even creeps into the title of this chapter of Dawkins’ book [3]. Values, good and 
bad, are touted as both the motive and the modus operandi of a mindless creative process.  
  
The title refers to a discussion of how the orchid has evolved to imitate both the appearance and 
smell of the sex organ of the female wasp, thus attracting male wasps to copulate, philandering 
creatures that they are, and promoting its own pollination. Dawkins gets into his discussion by 
quoting at length from a personal letter from an American minister who read of the phenomena in 
National Geographic. The man was so impressed that he came to believe “...that some kind of God 
in some kind of fashion must exist, and have an ongoing relationship with the processes by which 
things come into being.” The man consequently abandoned atheism and embraced the church. 
  
This letter has apparently disturbed Dawkins, for he responds publicly to the minister’s private 
letter at length: “...How, I want to ask the minister, can you be so sure that the wasp mimicking 
orchid (or eye, or whatever) wouldn’t work unless every part of it was perfect and in place? Have 
you in fact given the matter a split second’s thought? Do you actually know the first thing about 
orchids, or wasps, or the eyes with which wasps look at females and orchids? What emboldens you 
to assert that wasps are so hard to fool that the orchid’s resemblance would have to be perfect in 

                                                 
* Correspondence: Rober Campbell,  Independent Researcher. Website: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com   

   E-mail: bob@cosmic-mindreach.com  

   Note: The articles presented in this issue are based on my book “Downsizing Darwin: An Intelligent Face for Evolution” self-published in 1996 

[1]. More information is available at my website [2].  



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

237 

all dimensions in order to work” [3]. What follows from the pen of an eminent biologist obviously 
seeking converts to his mindless position is good cause to be disturbed, for he himself has no basis 
on which to be so sure of blind accident as the sole creative agent. His own logic is riddled with 
holes. 
  
Dawkins states that “The purpose of this chapter is to destroy the argument that complicated 
contrivances have to be perfect if they are to work at all.” Now despite what Dawkins says, this 
really isn’t the purpose of the chapter. Dawkins’ purpose is clearly to destroy any impression of 
intelligence at work in the creative order. Since the minister linked an intelligent agent of some 
kind to perfection, Dawkins wants to exploit this statement and erode any suggestion that 
complicated contrivances must be perfect from the outset, then maybe he can float this to triumph 
over any suggestion of intelligence at work at all in the evolutionary process. In other words, he 
hopes to succeed by stealth, which he feels would be good. He has contrived the approach to 
exploit the minister’s sentiments. 
  
Although this is clearly his hope, the two things are not synonymous. Intelligence does not imply 
perfection in all things from the outset. We know from experience that if we exercise a little 
intelligence that we can learn by degrees and adjust our course of action accordingly toward a 
satisfactory result. But the Darwinian position does not allow of intelligent feedback or assessment 
of alternatives prior to selecting a course of action. Evolutionary mutations are seen as rare random 
accidents that just happen to have a survival advantage that becomes established after the fact. 
There is no intelligent anticipation allowed in the process, no intelligent feedback, no prior value 
judgments to direct the evolutionary process toward a needed result. 
  
Having created a straw man, Dawkins sets out to destroy him by first running through many 
examples of creatures being fooled, from insect to human. Male stickleback fish are excited to 
mating behavior by any pear shaped object. An oystercatcher bird will try to incubate an egg as big 
as an ostrich egg. Some ground-nesting birds will roll anything remotely resembling an egg back 
into their nest. Baby herring gulls peck at the red spot on the parent’s bill for food, and will peck at 
any red spot. Black headed gulls will react typically to a dummy gull head mounted on a stick, 
minus a body. A deaf mother turkey will kill its own young as a predator response to motion alone 
because it cannot hear their distinctive chirps. Bees will clear a live bee from the nest if it is 
daubed with oleic acid, because this acid is given off by decaying bees and triggers an undertaker 
response. A female digger wasp always inspects its nest before dragging its prey in, and if its prey 
is moved a few inches, will keep going back to inspect its nest each time. Another digger wasp 
identifies its nest by landmarks of twigs etc. around its burrow, and if the twigs are moved a few 
feet, will dive into the ground where it thinks its burrow should be. One digger wasp provisions its 
larvae in several burrows, according to their daily growth assessed at a morning inspection, and 
subsequent switching of the larvae doesn’t bring corresponding adjustment in the provisions 
provided to each one. Evolution certainly hasn’t had an easy time exploring the integration of 
experience. 
  
All of this is intended to show that a very crude resemblance between an orchid and a female wasp 
might well be sufficient. “The general lesson we should learn is never to use human judgment in 
assessing such matters.” Yes, Richard Dawkins really says this in print. If we are not to use human 
judgment, what kind of judgment are we supposed to use?  



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

238 

  
Then he emphasizes again his stated purpose of the chapter, to defeat the fallacy of what he dubs 
“the Argument from Personal Incredulity.” We are apparently not entitled to disbelieve the 
exclusive Darwinian viewpoint. Of these arguments he says, “Time and again, it has proved the 
prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience.” Therefore it must always prove futile to 
disbelieve the Darwinian paradigm, is the implication in his statement. Now it must be conceded 
that not many people will take the time and effort to carefully sift through the verbiage masking 
and distorting the evidence, to sort out word by word the gross transgressions of common sense 
that pervade the literature. But that does not justify the Darwinian position by default.  
  
Dawkins further pursues his stealthy purpose by adopting the word “brittle” to describe a device 
that must be perfect if it is to work at all. Our besieged minister surely made a poor choice of 
words and Dawkins is going to milk them for all they are worth, despite the fact that they are 
really beside the point. Man made articles are generally not brittle, says Dawkins, for even a 747 
can fly on two engines. After ten minutes of thought Dawkins says that he can only come up with 
one near brittle man-made device, namely the arch, since its integrity obviously depends on the 
interdependence of its parts. Now think for just one minute. Will half a wheel work? Or a gear 
without teeth? Or a roof without supports? Or a table without legs? Or a pulley without an axle? 
Or a lever without a fulcrum? Or a window without a frame? Or a door without a hinge and a 
latch? Or a bucket without a bottom? Its hardly worth pursuing this tiresome logic. A man can live 
without one arm or one ear, but not without a heart, or a head. Some things are more essential than 
others to the integrity of the whole and this is no accident. Experience is a highly structured affair. 
  
But not according to Dawkins. He launches into attack against the straw man by listing various 
examples of mimicry in nature in addition to that displayed by the orchid. Among those that he 
contends creationist propaganda has served up as “brittle” are the camouflage of the tiger and 
leopard; the fishing rod of the angler fish; femmes fatales fireflies that mimic the flash patterns of 
other species in order to cannibalize them; saber-toothed blennies that mimic fish that clean a host, 
then feed on the host; many animals that resemble bark, twigs, leaves, flowers, stones, and 
seaweed; ground nesting birds that fake injury to protect their young; cuckoo eggs that resemble 
those of their host species; female mouthbreeder fish with dummy eggs painted on their flanks to 
attract males to brood real eggs. 
  
Throughout his argument Dawkins focuses on that word perfect, maintaining that is the key 
contention that makes the creationists wrong and Darwinists right. I’m not defending the 
creationists, only pointing out weaknesses in his arguments. He stresses that not only does visual 
acuity change from one species to another, so do the conditions. He maintains there will be a 
continuum of conditions from very bad to very good and then goes into a discussion to explain the 
obvious. Of course visual acuity varies with distance and lighting and angle. We can’t see in the 
dark or through the back of our head. 
  
But then Dawkins makes a giant leap of logic. With his smoke screen about perfection in place, 
holding the reader’s attention on the one hand, on the other hand he tries to float the whole 
Darwinian position past like a magician doing a magic pass. He says, “As evolution proceeds, 
resemblances of gradually improving perfection can therefore be favored by natural selection, in 
that the critical distance for being fooled gradually moves nearer.” 



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

239 

  
Can a wasp copulate with an orchid from a distance? And the wasp is not a night time philanderer 
that can mistake a lover in the dark. And the wasp is attracted not only by shape and color but also 
by smell, and the size must be just right for pollination to occur. These are highly complex 
variables that must be selected together in concert through parallel sets of mutations. Smell alone 
is as characteristic as fingerprints and so vast in its possibilities as to be virtually unlimited. Shape 
and size can be almost anything, and large combinations of color are possible. Yet the orchid’s 
survival depends upon selection from this unlimited range of options, with a very specific need for 
an insect pollinating vector. Somehow this maze of possibilities converges upon a specific wasp 
sufficiently for the strategy to work, and we are asked to believe that the selection was achieved by 
repeated parallel sets of blind fortuitous accidents, completely at random. Remember that the 
Darwinian position is that mutations are rare accidents and only a rare few offer a survival 
advantage. 
  
Earlier on Dawkins cites odds of a million million million million million to one for the genetic 
code evolving twice by accident, so that we must all have evolved from a single cell. The odds of 
all of the factors coming together by parallel series of rare random mutations in order for the 
orchid to imitate the wasp in the required time for selection pressure to be effective are so complex 
as to be not computable, but they are at least of the same order of enormity as the odds that 
Dawkins cites above. Try to compute the odds of a fish sprouting a fishing pole complete with a 
bait on the end of its nose. Before this succeeded there must be gillions upon gillions of extinct 
mistrials among many species of fish, with part poles growing out of their tails and bellies and 
sides.  
  
But Dawkins directs the discussion to his liking where he can make a point or two and pretend this 
wraps up the whole case. By citing a little knowledge acquired by biological research, one is 
supposed to believe he has the weight of the entire scientific community behind him. He focuses 
on the eye, the creationist’s favorite conundrum, as he calls it. There is no intention here to defend 
the creationists’ traditional positions, especially the literal Genesis account. The intention is only 
to explore the weaknesses in Dawkins’ arguments for Darwinism and show that the evidence is 
better explained by intelligent direction in the evolutionary process. Eyesight, he observes, fades 
with age, being adaptable to a continuum of tasks, so there is no difficulty in understanding the 
gradual evolution of the eye. 
  
Think about this for a moment. Does the gradual wearing out of our biological machinery justify 
the Darwinian stance that all life forms, including those complete with eyes, evolved not only 
gradually but also by blind luck in a game of chance atomic billiards? This is clearly the 
implication that he wishes to convey in argument after argument that is completely beside the 
point. I have pointed out before that intelligence allows for learning through intelligent feedback 
and consequent adjustments to intentionally converge toward an anticipated result. Pure chance 
allows for no communicative feedback and no direction. 
  
He now enlists the enormity of geological time to make his case credible, citing the work of two 
researchers, Nilsson and Pelger, to show that the eye can evolve in a relatively short period of 
time. Apparently, according to biologists’ reckoning, invertebrate eyes, employing at least nine 
different design principles, have independently evolved between forty and sixty times from scratch 



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

240 

among many species. One might well wonder how nine different design principles were 
conceived. One might well wonder why all this diversity of accumulated information should be 
lost to the higher sentient evolution of the vertebrates, if evolution really is a linear branching 
affair that is not otherwise in communication with itself. One might also wonder why the 
vertebrates should not have to explore the same ground again in order to arrive at a suitable 
“camera” eye design. Later we shall see that the vertebrates are thought to have branched off from 
the chordates, which diverged in the Cambrain Period, thus ignoring a couple hundred million 
years of other invertebrate evolution, including eyes.    
  
In any case Nilsson and Pelger had to start somewhere, he says, and make some assumptions in 
devising a computer model to simulate the number of generations required to evolve an eye. To 
start with, they had to assume that a light sensitive cell had already somehow evolved, although it 
could be of no selective advantage. Selection pressure would require some kind of vision process 
in which the eye could be an integral part to offer a survival advantage. This question is set aside 
as “a nice subject for future study,” as the critical questions invariably are, since nobody knows 
how to study them within the Darwinian paradigm. The paradigm fails completely with 
fundamental questions. 
  
Nilsson and Pelger worked at the level of tissues which can change according to random 
mutations. They began already well on the road to an eye, with a flat retina atop a flat pigmented 
layer and protected by a flat transparent layer. The critical elements in an eye are thus assumed as 
already given, arranged in the required order, in correct relative size, and in the correct position, 
without bestowing any survival advantage whatever to the animal. That surely makes things 
infinitely easier. How could such a meticulous arrangement of complex cells have happened by 
accident if it was useless as a functioning eye? We have not yet even mentioned the maze of neural 
connections from retinal cells to a brain that somehow becomes wired to portray the signals as a 
meaningful image to a resident observer of some kind, or how this is integrated with other sensory 
modalities together with visceral and somatic motor responses.  
  
In any case Nilsson and Pelger then let the refractive index of the transparent layer mutate while 
the shape of the model could deform at random, but under two all important constraints. Any 
mutant change must be small, and it must represent an improvement. How is any improvement to 
be demonstrated by the creature if the proto eye is not already properly wired to a functioning 
brain and integrated to some functional extent with its whole nervous system? Nilsson and Pelger 
are cheating more than a little bit. But the whole field is so biased that this kind of procedure is 
allowed.  
 
And what basis is there for assuming that ordered hierarchies are not structured into the genetic 
expression of a host creature such that a comparatively small mutation on one level does not result 
in comparatively major changes on subsumed levels? Hierarchically ordered homoeodomain 
proteins and homeotic genes that activate batteries of genes in an ordered sequence are recognized 
in biological text books. But that implies intelligence at work. Hierarchical order is not consistent 
with random order. 
  
Despite such gaping holes in the logic it was concluded from this hopelessly simplistic computer 
study that a good camera eye can evolve in fewer than four hundred thousand generations, and for 



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

241 

small animals this amounts to less than half a million years. What they are talking about is only the 
evolution of the refractive index and the shape of the eye, and this with cheating. All the really 
hard stuff is ignored completely. Yet Dawkins concludes from this camera eye simulation: “There 
has been enough time for it (the camera eye) to evolve from scratch fifteen hundred times in 
succession within any one lineage.” Is this good impartial science?  
  
Dawkins [3] makes an admission here, as to his reasons for insisting that evolution must be 
gradual. “Without gradualness in these cases we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym 
for the total absence of explanation.” Is intelligence a miracle? Can we explain how intelligence 
works, how it’s ordered? We live with it every day, and from very modest self-observation we find 
that it seeks out spatially, temporally, and intuitively ordered patterns in order to cope with 
experience. The socio-economic organizations that we function in are also structured 
communications systems that we have patterned according to the way that experience is implicitly 
presented to us. We are not totally blind victims of chance in everything that we do. We can plan 
and be agents of responsible action. Since we are also products of the evolutionary process, is it 
such a travesty of common sense to think that intelligence may also be at work in the evolutionary 
process?  
  
The point is that this avenue of research into the nature of intelligent order has been declared off 
limits by science while a host of clues abound right under our noses. This is an outrageously 
unscientific bias that is shared by most of the scientific community. Of course eyes evolved. But 
they didn’t evolve, gradually or otherwise, by blind meaningless luck. Dawkins’ whole argument 
is again completely beside the point. He is blowing smoke to screen the real issues. It is very hard 
to understand why intelligent academic leaders should devote such strenuous efforts to consign 
themselves and the whole of humanity to a mindless oblivion. Only double speak saves true 
believers from this personal realization. 
  
Dawkins [3] goes on to the “dance language” of honey bees in an effort to explain how it could 
have evolved gradually with intermediate steps. A foraging bee returns laden with pollen and 
nectar and then proceeds to communicate where the food supply is by doing a figure eight dance in 
the darkness inside the hive on a vertical comb. There is a straight section in the middle of the 
figure eight which is oriented like the needle of a compass to tell the direction in relation to the 
sun, and the position of the sun is adjusted for by an internal clock that bees have. The distance is 
communicated by the rate of a peeping sound the dancer bee makes, perhaps combined with its 
rate of turning and waggle. The other worker bees then leave the hive and fly in a straight line to 
the food supply. 
  
Before going on let’s examine Dawkins position closely again. Ask yourself, is it sufficient to 
establish that evolution is a gradual process in order to prove the Darwinian position that all 
advances are the result of rare random mutations that accidentally endow an incremental survival 
advantage? We all know that intelligence can gradually accomplish things. But as Dawkins seems 
to see it there are only two contestants in the field, the Darwinists and the Biblical creationists with 
a Genesis bent. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge the possibility that the whole creative process 
could itself be an intelligent process, with all of the properties that we normally ascribe to 
intelligence. This means that there is an intelligent order that is both transcendent and immanent 
through which all things are in some way interrelated. This approach at least has the advantage of 



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

242 

explaining the natural emergence of our own intelligence and it is not necessarily opposed to a 
certain niche for both the Darwinian adaptation of species, and also the essential values that have 
evolved through our various religious traditions. But Dawkins’ extreme and exclusive stance keeps 
running into insurmountable difficulties even on the grounds that he chooses to prove its efficacy. 
  
Dawkins goes on to point out that many insects navigate by the sun and bees can see the polarized 
direction of light, and thus can navigate on cloudy days. Now this capacity to see the polarization 
of light, however gradually it may begin, must be the result of a fortuitous series of random sets of 
mutations, according to Darwinism, even though fortuitous mutations are extremely rare. Each 
mutation must be a set, because it must fully integrate specially designed emerging receptors in the 
bees’ eyes into the whole nervous system of the bee, together with its motor responses to survival 
needs, as the bee is genetically programmed to perceive and respond to them. It is very hard to 
imagine that one genetic mutation can accidentally alter the eyes together with a host of 
adjustments to the nervous system and behavioral responses. And if it is a set, similar 
complementary sets of mutations must occur many times in succession to effect the result 
gradually through selection pressure. And only rare mutations endow a survival advantage. How 
then can a random collection of mutations occur simultaneously to alter the eye and nervous 
system to act in concert in any meaningful way. A bee might well begin to grow antlers first. 
  
It is Dawkins’ position that this capacity evolved as an adjunct to the evolving bee’s eye. It must 
also have evolved in parallel with the bee’s internal clock in such a way that both are linked to 
motor responses to need. The directional process is reversed for bees in the Southern Hemisphere, 
and reverses annually in the tropics, so a rare mutation must do more than just fortuitously hit on 
perceiving polarized light, and being able to use it. It must interpret the information, linking this to 
a specific spatial direction of motion with respect to the sun when it is shining in various parts of 
the world and also to an internal clock. If all of these things do not come together at once, at least 
to some extent, then no survival advantage can be demonstrated that will drive evolution in a 
positive direction according to the Darwinist theory. If Dawkins or anyone one else can conceive 
of how the complexity of this task can be accomplished without benefit of intelligent input from a 
broad base of experience, why don’t they explain it instead of producing peripheral smoke screen 
arguments that mask and ignore the main issues. 
  
Dawkins deals only with what he portrays as the main problem, to establish a credible series of 
gradual intermediate steps. Some tropical bees build exposed combs attached to a tree. One species 
is cited that dances on top of the comb such that the straight run of the dance points to the food, 
and the straight run may have begun with a few steps on take off that became ritualized. An 
obvious way to prolong the take off run is to repeat it, thus leading to a figure eight, Dawkins says. 
It might be obvious to an intelligent human being. But is he now talking about a random genetic 
mutation that directs behavior, or is he investing the bee with an independent intelligence 
governing behavior to some extent, such that it also directs its genetic programming? Dawkins 
own words imply the latter, which he earlier insists is utterly impossible. There is no intelligent 
feedback in the Darwinian position. 
  
To this point, none of this discussion addresses the question of how the bees evolve the capacity to 
identify the message that is being transmitted through hearing and feel, and then translate it into 
the appropriate action. To perform the dance is one thing. To perceive and interpret it is another. 



DNA Decipher Journal | November 2012 | Volume 2 | Issue 3 | pp. 236-243 

Campbell, R., Part I: A Critique of River Out of Eden: On Winning by Cheating 

 

 
ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 

Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

243 

Why should the other bees pay any attention to one bee that has slowly begun to act just a little bit 
strange? Why should they gradually intuit some meaning in this bee’s slight deviations from the 
norm. Do bees have an empathy for one another? Are they consciously aware to some extent? Are 
they psychically bonded? Are they in intimate communication? Do they experience mutual needs? 
Do they have some form of inter-bee value judgment? Is there some level of intelligent 
comprehension of the dance that can be learned, as more advanced creatures do, by following 
adults when they are young and gradually making the necessary associations? Could there be some 
collective patterned energy at work, in conjunction with their genetic make up, that they 
independently relate to and that guides them accordingly? Or is their response to the dance only 
blindly genetically programmed by atomic billiards? In any of the former cases there is 
intelligence at work in the evolutionary process. In the latter case, the already prohibitive odds of a 
random collection of simultaneous parallel mutations working toward a concerted result are 
multiplied many orders of magnitude. 
  
“The steamhammer of geological time” is not long enough to crack this “peanut” as Dawkins calls 
it, because concerted parallel mutations in a whole generation of individuals are necessary before 
they can even begin to demonstrate a selection pressure to their collective advantage. Bees must 
slowly learn to dance according to where they found flowers. Genetics must relate to direction and 
distance—to space and time. As if the odds against a concerted set of such mutations happening by 
accident once was not enough, another complementary set of complex mutations must again 
happen by chance, to interpret the dance—and again, and again, and again in generation after 
generation after generation, if the final result is to be achieved gradually by selection pressure. 
Dawkins’ own argument of gradualness in the evolutionary order only compounds the already 
impossible odds against it happening by chance to more impossible levels.  
 
 
References 
 
1. Robert Campbell, Downsizing Darwin: An Intelligent Face for Evolution. MindReach Library (1996). 
 
2. http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com 
 
3. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Basic Books (1996). 
 
4. Richard Dawkins, the Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without 

Design. W. W. Norton & Company (1996). 
 
5. Richard Dawkins, the Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press (1990). 
 
 


