Question

If I’m not mistaken, the Rabbi rejected the algorithm that Dawkins proposed in The Blind Watchmaker as evidence for a mechanistic process that can produce biological complexity, since the letter sequence is pre-directed toward the desired result. Darwinism, on the other hand, rejects teleology, so the algorithm actually undermines what Dawkins wants to show.
My question is: why can’t one say that natural selection is what replaces teleology? Presumably that is what Darwin said, and Dawkins tried to illustrate it with the algorithm. You don’t need a mechanism aimed at a final goal, like a sheep that benefits from thick wool in a cold region; rather, any variation that increases the amount of wool here and now will be filtered and selected, and that is how we get a sheep with thick wool even though the process is not aimed anywhere. In other words, comparing the letter sequence in the algorithm to what is required merely symbolizes getting closer to an ideal, namely thicker wool, without any goal at the end.
I’m not sure I managed to explain myself properly, but thanks in any case.