I have done it, and it didn't do anything for me, but I gave it a go. For example, my colleague… has suggested that the origin of the eukaryotic cell was an even more … statistically improbable step than the origin of life.
I expect you can probably list disbenefits as well. I believe in the survival of the fittest as an explanation for the evolution of life, but there have been people who have advocated the survival of the fittest as a kind of political creed, where they will justify a form of right-wing politics or economics on the grounds that it conforms to the laws of nature.
The theme of The Blind Watchmakerpublished inis that evolution can explain the apparent design in nature.
I don't think it was at all a nourishing fantasy. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God. The immediate objection is that we would be able to explain these phenomena if we had the right theory.
Can we, in exactly the same spirit, look for selfish or ruthless memes? Albert MohlerJr. They also assert that there is no possibility of a revelation from outside our material existence.
I didn't actually read Darwin himself. Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages: Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. If there are people who seem to need either religion or astrology and crystal gazing to satisfy them, I would like to have a go at giving them an alternative, and just to see whether perhaps it might work better as a satisfying agent.