Re: Dawkins and natural selection contradicts himself

On Feb 23, 6:37 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2989

"..Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose
in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature,
it is the blind watchmaker...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=1...
Richard Dawkins Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University; author,
"The Ancestor's Tale":

"....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
underlie the universe..."

Dawkins contradicts himself, he first tell us that NS has no purpose
and then tells us NS produces something.


You bloviating sack of ***.

Now that I have taken care of the pleasantries, allow me to point out
that a process does not need a purpose in order to produce something.
It is a fallacy, and one that the human mind is prone to (let alone
your sub-human mind) to assign purpse, personality and intent to
natural processes.

So, even though Emmylou Harris _would_ be a worthy goal for natural
selection, it is clear that she is the result of natural laws playing
themselves out. As are you.

Go sacrifice a goat to the volcano god or he will shower lava on to
your trailer.

Will in New Haven

--

"We are billion-year-old carbon" Joni Mitchell - Woodstock

.

Loading