Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Chas]

I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

You have not, however, satisfactorily defined what a 'fitness paradigm' is.

---

I don't think anybody would argue that point. Humans are very remarkable in many ways. But it's what you want to say beyond that, that causality implies teleology, that more is needed to explain evolution beyond physical laws acting on physical objects; that is what I find grossly unjustified in light of the data.

I have never said anything beyond pointing out that intellects can design a fitness paradigm and let evolution produce an intended form. Humans are doing that today. The reason humans can do this is because evolution is not a blind process as suggested by Dawkins.

It is not 'suggested by Dawkins', it is an integral part of the theory of evolution.

---

That is largely the point of the selfish gene theory and his formulation of memes.

---

Negative.....Dawkins was claiming Evolution doesn't home in on targets like his demonstration did.

Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

No - there are no targets, there is no 'homing in'.

---

Natural selection homes in on targets because it's an eliminative process. But it's still blind in that it does not plan for the future. That's his point. There's no designer beyond physical law. And it's not an intelligent process as brilliant as it may appear to us.

Its a mechanistic process that appears not to be able to come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect. Again I challenge....replicate natural evolution without substantive involvement of an intellect. Can't do it? How about show me evolutionary systems coming into existence without the involvement of an intellect? Can you do that at least?

Every natural phenomena we observe today, we can observe an example of that phenomena coming into existence without an intellect. Want to observe a tornado come into existence without an intellect, park your ass in Kansas for a bit. Where on earth do you go to observe an evolutionary system come into existence?....You have to go to where intellects are making them because they just don't come into existence on their own. Now you would have me believe this one system did come into existence without substantive involvement of an intellect? Why should I believe that?

Of course we don't observe it 'coming into existence'. There is only one and it's already here.

When we get to other worlds, then we may observe it.