I’ll admit that “natural selection” can be quite compelling. But I’d say that you and those from whom you have learned are probably too in love with your core belief (as Dawkins acknowledges that it is indeed a “belief”) in the circular notion of “natural selection,” and perhaps also somewhat threatened by the ID folk, to ever acknowledge that natural selection isn’t anywhere near as coherent or convincing as are the superb theories that we have for the inanimate world.

But then Ernst Mayr has acknowledged that, “biology is not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences,” and that the “philosophy of biology has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.” So I suppose we really shouldn’t expect that anything coming out of the “philosophy of biology,” will ever be as coherent and convincing as theories coming out of the physical sciences. Nevertheless, I’m disappointed that you can’t see and/or acknowledge that natural selection is obviously circular and ultimately not all that explanatory . . . hell, we could say that stars and galaxies are a result of cosmological natural selection, but what the hell would that actually tell us? (Except that some may find it more palatable than saying, “God did it.”)