RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 8, 2019 at 7:02 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2019 at 7:06 pm by GrandizerII.)
Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.
Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.
Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.
