tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post116187101477868352..comments2007-04-30T14:43:07.601-05:00Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-91604354160635293442007-04-30T14:43:00.000-05:002007-04-30T14:43:00.000-05:00Well, indeed, I suppose that Dawkins is taking non adaptation - which leads to non survival - to be 'bad' in the sense that we wouldn't be around to be talking about all this if we hadn't adapted. But I don't see how this has anything to do with intelligent observations or coming from intelligence..Deric Bowndshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-62294328224481808402007-04-30T13:39:00.000-05:002007-04-30T13:39:00.000-05:00If we are hardwired by evolution to trust our parents because that is evolutionarily "good", Dawkins must then explain the origin of this "beneficial" force that calls survival good, and non adaptation bad. Since it is a sum of intelligent observations...wouldn't the result of that had to have come from intelligence?<BR/><BR/>Dawkins sees too much purpose in the universe to truly be blind to God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com