Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

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]

What sighted force is causing the river to flow? Or are you just attempting to call natural causes sighted, thus turning this entire thread into a pointless exercise in misapplying definitions?