... as far as it goes: It's like this, you see. I've raised the question of science and metaphor here a number of times and have made this precise point: "Analogies, whether in science or poetry ... are not arbitrary and meaningless, not merely 'airy nothings, loose types of things, fond and idle names.' "
My point has been that a lot of "scientific" debate has been based on poor analogies. The world is a machine - but there's no mechanic and it's not an artifact, etc. In short, not like any machine we've ever heard of. Or the world looks like it's designed - only there's nothing in it that's ever been designed by anybody. Bridges are built according to design. Flowers and birds are not, so far as I can tell. God is not some everlasting Edsion tinkering away in his celestial lab.
"Charles Darwin formed his evolutionary theory of natural selection by drawing a parallel to the artificial selection performed by breeders, an analogy he cited in his 1859 classic The Origin of Species." But that parallel proved false. Natural species change, unlike, say, dog breeding, does not have the problem of in-breeding. This is further proof that the great 19th-century biologist was Mendel, not Darwin. Mendel performed actual experiments, gathered data, quantified his material.