[ QUOTE ]
Its a common problem in discussing topics in evolution, this anthropomorphizing of the process, attributing intent, things like that. The reason is, it makes it easier to describe something by saying stuff like "Ok, so the worm needs to get here, so evolution creates this mechanism." It ends up being misleading and is obviously entirely incorrect, but it makes it more approachable. Dennett is probably the worst culprit of this, although I think Gould does it often and Dawkins also, to a lesser degree. Certainly, it is something that is RAMPANT in science textbooks and popular scientific writing. I always cringe a little bit when I read anyone talking about the goals or tactics or strategies that evolution uses to do things, but I also cringe when I read a general chemistry textbook and they talk about electrons in orbits and such. Its a balance, the writer tries his best, and you must consider the audience. Lestat, by posting here on SMP and reading the evolution debate in a very special context, you have a different perspective than the vast majority of readers. You know enough to cringe when you hear agency bestowed upon mindless processes (mindless added for NRs benefit) but perhaps don't have the experience or the repetition needed to translate those pop-speak phrases into what they really mean.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dawkins wrote the following more than 30 years ago in
The Selfish Gene. He was talking about genes, but his comments obviously apply to larger biological units, i.e, organisms:
[ QUOTE ]
Throughout this book, I have emphasized that we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather as if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient, as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose...Just as we have found it convenient to think of genes as active agents, working purposefully for their own survival, perhaps it might be convenient to think of memes in the same way. In neither case must we get mystical about it. In both cases the idea of purpose is only a metaphor, but we have already seen what a fruitful metaphor it is in the case of genes. We have even used words like 'selfish' and 'ruthless' of genes, knowing full well it is only a figure of speech.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, I think Dawkins has always been pretty careful about this, and, to the extent that he is actually guilty of misleading anthropomorphism, it's not because he doesn't know any better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]