Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Chas]

You don't think Dawkins is completely aware of what you say here, and hence uses blindness differently from what you would like it to mean? Your thread title is very grandiose, you might as well change it to: I define some words differently from Dawkins, and therefore he's wrong!. Darwin himself starts out his book with longish chapters on animal breeding and pidgeon fancying, what you say here has been obvious to people from the start.

I don't think Dawkins is aware of what I say here or if he is aware then he is intentionally misleading his audience to promote an atheistic worldview. I tend to think that his error is innocent until I have evidence otherwise.

By blind I mean not guided by anything. I believe Dawkins is using blind the same way.

I think that because Dawkins uses an example of evolution that is guided by a fitness function, selection mechanism, fitness paradigm...what ever you want to call it. Dawkins goes on to claim that real evolution is not like his example(which he calls a bit of a cheat), that it isn't guided to a particular form by natural selection like his computer program.

Dawkins is wrong because evolution will always home in on a specific set of targets guided by the fitness paradigm. If the fitness paradigm is sufficiently constrained, evolution will home in on an exact solution....just like his computer program did.

His computer program was not a cheat but a real example of how evolution works.

---

Being a theos must suck... millions of years of hard work to get busted by something as trivial as a "natural disaster", or deforestation...

For an eternal being, billions of years is but an instance. For an all powerful being, there is no such thing as 'hard work". From a human perspective evolution as a creative process looks circuitous but this is not the case for God.

You are utterly and blindingly wrong. Natural selection does not home in on anything. It is a mindless process.

Dawkins's examples are to show aspects of evolution; they are not evolution, and he clearly says so and why.

But I suggest you write up your paper and send it to him.

---

Since by 'fitness paradigm' you seem to mean 'natural selection to improve adaptation to the reproductive environment' which is pretty much what evolution is, I presume that you would consider your speculation falsified (not that speculation needs to be falsified, it needs to be supported in the first place before it rises to the level that anyone should be bothered to try to falsify it) if the reproductive environment isn't designed, for example, if the reproductive environment is random.

Is that a fair statement? If so, do you want to change anything about your speculation at this point?

If you could generate the complexity we observe and attribute to natural selection with a completely random fitness paradigm, I would consider my speculation falsified.

Then falsified it is.

Natural selection depends on the environment, and that is constantly changing in unpredictable ways.

---

Are you joking? You think that similar circumstances leading to similar looking results of natural selection is somehow at odds with an atheistic worldview? That's wrong, and your charge that there is anything to hide is ridiculous.

Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end. He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

No it doesn't. Please provide some credible evidence for your statement.

B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

Just no.

---

You substantiated the fact that you seem to mean something different from him by blindness of evolution, nothing more.

I addressed this concern but you ignored it. It seems that blindness, in Dawkins eyes, means not guided by anything. Hence he called his own accurate demonstration of how evolution works....a bit of a cheat...because it was guided by a fitness function.

Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

You have yet to demonstrate that it is guided or what precisely a 'fitness function' is. Your argument is not coherent.

---

Is natural evolution a bit of a cheat too because it is guided by a fitness function?

No, you have it ass-backwards again. Whatever guides the selection process in nature is what you have to use as your "fitness function" in the theory in order to describe nature.

---

I addressed this concern but you ignored it. It seems that blindness, in Dawkins eyes, means not guided by anything.

No I'm pretty sure that's not what Dawkins means by blindness. You just made that up.

Actually, it is part of what 'blindness' means in that context. The primary meaning is without goals or foresight.

---

No I'm pretty sure that's not what Dawkins means by blindness. You just made that up.

No, I gave you a rationale why I thought that. However when you quote me, you conveniently leave that reason out.

I'll restate for I think the third time....maybe third time will be the charm and you will stop ignoring it. I think Dawkins means by "blindness" that natural evolution isn't guided by anything. I think this because he gives an accurate demonstration of how evolution works and calls it a cheat because his demonstration is clearly guided.

You are still confused about this. The examples are a 'cheat' because they are guided. He knows it, I know it, and pretty much everyone here except you knows it.

Dawkins, and everyone else who understands evolution by natural selection mean unguided, without goals, without foresight when they call the algorithm 'blind'.

Dawkins is neither confused or wrong; you are both.

---

What DID you imply, if you argue that evolution needs guidance by an intelligence to work, but you don't mean God? Do you want to argue that one can set the initial conditions such that the outcome is exactly what is desired by your deity?

If Dawkins can do it(and he did....but he called it cheating), then God can.

Good. Now demonstrate the existence of God.

Or show how evolution is guided - you have failed to do so as yet.