RE: Richard Dawkin's big blunder
March 14, 2014 at 9:20 am
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2014 at 9:27 am by Heywood.)
(March 14, 2014 at 9:16 am)whateverist Wrote: That's not really much of a risk since there is no way to test or falsify what you're saying. Given your assumption that all life is already imbued with this special 'fitness paradigm', how would you suggest we go about testing evolution without it? You've just inserted god where none is needed. Why do you think the natural requires the supernatural to prop it up?
Fitness paradigm isn't something imbued in life. The fitness paradigm is simply the mechanism which determines what is fit and what isn't.
And my speculation can be falsified by simulating evolution without designing a fitness paradigm.