Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

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.

I don't think Dawkins is aware of what I say here or if he is aware then he is intentionally misleading his audience to promote an atheistic worldview. I tend to think that his error is innocent until I have evidence otherwise.

By blind I mean not guided by anything. I believe Dawkins is using blind the same way.

I think that because Dawkins uses an example of evolution that is guided by a fitness function, selection mechanism, fitness paradigm...what ever you want to call it. Dawkins goes on to claim that real evolution is not like his example(which he calls a bit of a cheat), that it isn't guided to a particular form by natural selection like his computer program.

Dawkins is wrong because evolution will always home in on a specific set of targets guided by the fitness paradigm. If the fitness paradigm is sufficiently constrained, evolution will home in on an exact solution....just like his computer program did.

His computer program was not a cheat but a real example of how evolution works.

---

Being a theos must suck... millions of years of hard work to get busted by something as trivial as a "natural disaster", or deforestation...

For an eternal being, billions of years is but an instance. For an all powerful being, there is no such thing as 'hard work". From a human perspective evolution as a creative process looks circuitous but this is not the case for God.