Talk:God's utility function

Template:WikiProject GeneticsI am a deep supporter of Dawkins' views, but this article appears to me as a bit of one-side biased. I don't mean to say we should put any kind of creationism in there, just clean it all up to reflect a more neutral view. Some claims here sound as universally accepted at least, while some appear as outright quotes - and the phrase "as Dawkins says it best" doesn't really belong here.

--82.139.47.117 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Dawkins invented this phrase. So, I think it is right to present his views here. That is not to say that we shouldn't include other sources here. I'll edit the article again when I have a chance. Fred Hsu 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unclear about what Dawkins intent is here...is he describing the mechanics of how he thinks evolution occurs or is he making a statement about the metaphysical implications of the evolutionary process. As is, it seems the latter.

Science or Metaphysics?

For example, it is said in the article that he asserts: "it is a mistake to assume that an ecosystem or a species as a whole exists for a purpose. In fact, it is wrong to suppose that individual organisms lead a meaningful life either. In nature, only genes have a utility function – to perpetuate their own existence with indifference to great sufferings inflicted upon the organisms they build, exploit and discard" Well yes, but that goes without saying, doesn't it? Doesn't the methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific process basically assume that metaphysical concepts "purpose" and "meaning" are unimportant in the first place? If the whole point of the "God's utility function" is that it is an argument for why genes themselves, as opposed to species or groups, are the units on which natural selection acts, then I certainly didn't get it from article---this article seems to be more about how life is cruel, but hey, blame genes for that. If that is all there really is to this term---or if Dawkin's discussion of it is so tied to all this rhetoric about the how cruel genes are, than I don't think it contributes anything that isn't already in the Gene-centered view of evolution. Corbmobile (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]