Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

So I rewatched the segment. You completely misunderstand why he says that his example is a bit of a cheat:
He calls it a cheat because his computer example specifies the precise phenotype directly (the goal sentence) rather than a selection criterion such as a "fitness measure" on sentences. The latter would not be a cheat, but would also not yield a fixed result. Just like evolution in nature.

This is good criticism that has me thinking. I want to think about this a little bit before I respond to you.