Dick in the Dock Part. 7: Don’t get Cocky!

In this chapter Dawkins attempts to give a Darwinian explanation for the origin of religion. This probably would have gone better if Dawkins had not demonstrated a complete ineptitude regarding biological evolution by natural selection on the first page. First he tries to tell us that every thing in the biological world is there for a "reason" because nature "selected" it for survival. But this could only be the case if evolution were "finished", which by definition it cannot be. (I bet T. Rex thought he was the last word in evolution, until that asteroid hit.) According to Darwinism, there will always be "random" mutations, and it will take nature time to cull them. But even under the reasonable presumption, that every widely disseminated characteristic within a species is useful, Dawkins analogy of peacocks and bowerbirds is ridiculous . Does Dawkins really think the peacock's tail is there to attract peahens? Maybe he is old school, and thinks females are just silly things, and there is nothing even "natural selection all mighty" can do about it*. But those of us that do not live in Dawkins fantasyland realize that if the peacock's tails served no real purpose, nature would have long ago selected the peahens that chose the more sensible less extravagant mates.
Unfortunately Dawkins “meme” theory does not go much better than his pea theory. This really is too bad, because I for one would really like a good explanation as to why people seem so universally eager to chase after superstitious nonsense. Like Saul of Tarsus, I am simply baffled, does not nature teach? Is not it manifest in the things that are made? Cannot it be accessed through simple philosophy? Yes, yes and yes, but still people seem to prefer silly lies to the simple and elegant Truth.
Dawkins proposes that children just believe every thing their parents tell them, don’t swim in crocodile infested waters, sacrifice a goat to bring the rains, it is all good to the mind of a child. I do not necessarily agree with this premise, but even if we except it, for argument sake, I still don’t see how the whole sacrifice a goat thing got started in the first place? Even if we can chalk it up to a random meme mutation, certainly this would seem to be one that nature would select against, in favor of more scientific tribes, who realize that sacrificing a goat don’t got didly to do with bringing the rains, and thus have a little extra chow on hand when the dry spell does come.

* Obviously I do not think even Dawkins is silly enough to actually think a peacock’s tail is there to attract mates, but if he is going to treat us as if we were, then turnabout is fair play.