I understand where you are coming from (and personally think our conversation is more like a dance). Like I said: I don&#x27;t think your analogy is <i>wrong</i>, just that there&#x27;s a big risk of ending up with false expectations without realising that is a misapplication of the analogy. Like you mentioned, projecting intentionality where there is none is especially likely.<p>I can give a clear example of a mistake like this: based on Paul Ewald&#x27;s TED talk[1] I once was talking about the evolution of lethality in diseases with some friends. They are all highly educated, some of them doctors as well.<p>Turns out, the less a disease depends on its host to find new hosts to infect, the more lethal it tends to be. The reason is that the mutations that maximise reproduction - even at the cost of the host&#x27;s life - have the advantage over less lethal pathogens. This gives it a clear short-term advantage, but of course it does not work in the long term because it runs out of hosts. And yet some of those friends insisted that this did not make sense because <i>it would not be in the best interest of a disease to maximise lethality</i>, thinking in terms of intentionality that is not present in evolution.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ted.com&#x2F;talks&#x2F;paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate_germs?language=en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ted.com&#x2F;talks&#x2F;paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate...</a>