Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[pocaracas]

I've been a bit out of this whole discussion.... because... well... it's been stupid.
Heywood seems to be claiming that evolution works like the program that Dawkins wrote... If it doesn't, then why did he use that program as an example?? Am-I-right?
As with most analogies, that program is a flawed analogy to the actual process of evolution. It's flawed because it is guided and that guidance is well exposed by Dawkins himself... as a way to make the program arrive at the desired outcome faster than if an actual evolutionary process was underway.

Heywood seems to be arguing that the hole in the ground was designed for the puddle so that the water would fit perfectly onto it...the pathway of the river was designed in such a way for the water to flow through it... The environment was setup in such a perfect way as to make plant, animal and fungal life on this planet evolve towards what we see today... inter-species symbioses included!
I can't see it like that, unless you say that physics (with it's subset known as chemistry) is the guiding "force"... albeit a non-sentient one.