And so, to reiterate, the problem is that natural selection, although somewhat compelling, and probably superficially true, is ultimately nothing more than a circular explanation that, as Dawkins has acknowledged, many believe is true but that can’t really be proved. It doesn’t really predict much more than common sense and maybe some imagination would predict—the individuals/traits having higher survival and reproduction rates are going to, you guessed it, survive and reproduce at higher rates—how could it be otherwise?

As physics/cosmology doesn’t rely on some sort of circular cosmological natural selection to explain the evolution of stars, galaxies, or the solar system (although one could argue that there is a “selection” process in the forming of such things); so too biology must find a more coherent and convincing theory(s) than the circular “natural selection” to superficially explain biological evolution.

Keep an open mind Carey, don’t blindly accept what your books and the establishment are preaching, and maybe you yourself will discover a more coherent and convincing theory(s) . . . and if I’m still alive maybe you’ll want to apologize for calling me myopic.