Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

The set of tenacious views contains items not shared by the set of worthy or accurate views.

Creationism, like evolutionary “destinations” is just such a view.  Initially, this view was very popular, with the arc of life being some line of improvement between an amoeba and the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement.  A Victorian scholar.

What we’ve learned since, not just about biology but also psychology and anthropology, leaves no room whatsoever for this notion, however tenacious, to be worthy or true.

I can only think of two reasons why you think what I'm saying in controversial. The first is wrongly attributing some kind of spiritual meaning, such as fate, to the word destination. The second is holding some kind of anti-deterministic philosophy, in which organisms exist outside of any casual chains. Your position seems odd to me. What does it mean to talk about selection and adaptation if there aren't states at which an organism can or can't be at rest in?

Its very popular in psychology to hold very deterministic views of behavior. Not many believe that an organism could have behaved otherwise than it did. I think psychology leaves very little room for wide open endogenous action. If organism are indeed on a journey, as you say, it is one they take on train tracks.

---

@John 6IX Breezy

You do realize that even if you could demonstrate that the human eye couldn’t have evolved, that does not constitute a positive argument or evidence for any other alternative hypothesis...yes?

I don't see the point of realizing something that has no effect on the OP, but yes, it seems you understand how theory confirmation and disconfirmation works.