Dawkins was talking about natural selection in the context of the products of evolution, hence the complexity, diversity and beauty. That's why he said that. I have my own concept of beauty, thanks, and I'm not scared of using the word. I'm a human being, not Mr Spock. Nothing is as simple as you think.

Natural selection is not about "survival." Me grabbing a cheese sandwich is about survival. It's about differential survival. Everything that's born/hatches/germinates "survives," at least for a bit. Not the same thing. And I didn't mention "Darwin's finches." I've got more sense, believe it or not.

So I see you agree that calling natural selection a driving force isn't a good idea after all. Driving force implies directionality. Not only is that wrong, natural selection can also be pretty good at maintaining the status quo.

Darwin did not have the tools available to him than we have now. There is a better interpretation of geology and we have genetics and biochemistry way beyond what he had. He may not have explained the origin of species but he discussed it in the context of evolution by natural selection. I'm sure he would have been delighted by the work done that he so brilliantly initiated. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll agree about what a species actually is. Or maybe that's an impossible dream. I'm just off outside into my garden to weed out a hybrid swarm of willow-herbs that probably originated from around three different species, yet they all quite merrily set seed. Dirty buggers!