Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Alex K]

If there are similarities to isolated cases, it's likely that some things just objectively work better than others. It doesn't prove supernatural design. It just proves the efficiency of some solutions.

I have not claimed it proves supernatural design. However since evolution is guided by the fitness paradigm, an intellect can use it as a creative process to produce specific forms. Human beings or any other intellects that might exist can use evolution as a creative tool because it isn't a blind process as suggested by Dawkins. Design the fitness paradigm and evolution will produce an intended product.

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.