Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.

Lovely power move lol.

---

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.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

Yes, so stop treating it as such when you criticize the theory of evolution, because the theory doesn't suggest that.