Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (Penguin, 1996; first published 1995)

Daniel Dennett · c. 1995

Daniel Dennett did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this book, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The book prints chapter headings its extracted text does not preserve, so the claims below are in the book's order but not grouped. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
Darwin's idea leaks out of biology into questions far beyond it

Their wordsDarwin’s idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers—welcome or not—to questions in cosmology
Our reading
There is no future in a sacred myth

Their wordsThere is no future in a sacred myth.
Our reading
Darwin had the single best idea anyone has ever had, ahead of Newton and Einstein

Their wordsIf I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else.
Our reading
No skyhooks are needed to make a skylark, nor to make an ode

Their wordsIf there are no skyhooks needed to make a skylark, there are also no skyhooks needed to make an ode
Our reading
Design can emerge from mere order by an algorithmic process with no prior mind

Their wordsDarwin’s dangerous idea is that Design can emerge from mere Order via an algorithmic process that makes no use of pre-existing Mind.
Our reading
All life on Earth came from one branching tree by algorithmic processes

Their wordsLife on Earth has been generated over billions of years in a single branching tree—the Tree of Life—by one algorithmic process or another.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.