Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

He really doesn't it seeems.

Heywood, could you describe in your own words how "darwinian" evolution is supposed to work, and then place your objection?

Here is how I define evolution most of the time.

Evolution is a process whereby small changes in the heritiable
characteristics of a population accumulate thru a selective filter over successive generations. The accumulation of these changes ultimately result in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge.

I say most of the time because technically evolution doesn't require complexity, diversity, knowledge, or anything to increase. Evolution can sometimes cause these things to decrease. But for this thread...lets keep is simple and just use this as my definition.

I have no objection to evolution. I object to calling it blind process because it is guided by a fitness paradigm. Much like the banks guide the flow of the river and the river influences the banks, Darwinian evolution is guided by a fitness paradigm, but also influences that same fitness paradigm. I wouldn't call the flow of a river blind so I don't call evolution blind(unless it is evolution without a fitness paradigm....like Dawkins' random sentence generator....but that is evolution only in a very strict sense....not a Darwinian sense).

[/i]