Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Mister Agenda]

Dawkins showed that an intellect can use evolution as a means to a specific end.

We've been doing that for thousands of years with agriculture and animal husbandry.

He then called his demonstration a cheat. Why?

Because it was artificial selection, not natural selection.

A)He believes natural evolution isn't guided by anything and thus not homing in on anything(which is clearly a blunder because it sometimes does home in on particular forms).

Your claim does not become less of a misconception the more you repeat it. Sure, if there's a God, it may be guiding evolution in a way similar to Dawkins' program...and if there's not, it's not, and evolution acts in exactly the same way. Adding a 'guider' does not increase the explanatory power of the theory in any way. And either way, Dawkins' program didn't simulate natural selection, whether natural selection is unguided or guided by a deity. Artificial selection is much, MUCH faster than natural selection. It's almost as though an intellect guiding evolution makes a real difference in the outcome.

B)He realizes evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm but was concerned people would conclude God used this as a means of creation(contrary to an atheistic world view).

I'm pretty sure this isn't a rabbit hole anyone could anticipate a person going down: organisms adapt to fit their environment, therefore God! I mean, theistically guided evolution is an old claim, but to reason that selective conservation of inherited variable traits actually implies a God is a new one.

I hope your idea catches on among Christians, if it does they'll be claiming evolution was their idea all along in twenty years, but at least they won't be claiming the universe isn't more than 10 thousand years old. Your ideas are harmless enough in comparison to be preferable.