Dawkins

If I am not mistaken, the rabbi rejected the algorithm that Dawkins proposed in The Blind Watchmaker as evidence of a mechanistic process that could produce biological complexity since the sequence of letters is pre-determined to what is desired. Darwinism, on the other hand, rejects teleology, and therefore the algorithm actually undermines what Dawkins wants to show.
My question is why it is impossible to say that natural selection is the one that replaces teleology. (This is probably what Darwin said, and Dawkins tried to illustrate with the algorithm) We do not need a mechanism that is aimed at a final goal like a sheep that enjoys thick wool in a cold area, but rather any variation that increases the amount of wool here and now will be filtered and selected, and thus we will get a sheep with thick wool even though the process is not aimed anywhere. This means that comparing the sequence of letters in the algorithm with what is required only symbolizes an approach to the ideal (thicker wool) without any goal in the end.
I’m not sure I explained myself well, thanks anyway.