It was my 11th grade chemistry teacher that pointed out strongly
   the dangers of misusing analogies. I guess I always thought in
   them; they help me understand the world. So, I've always had to
   fight for precision when I use analogies myself and know where
   they work and where they break down.

   A nice side-effect has been being able to notice analogies
   others use very quickly; analogies and metaphors that often go
   unnoticed because they're so commonly in use, such as artificial
   intelligence progress as being equivalent to the evolutionary
   processes when they're not.

   A strong example of someone who clings to heavily to
   evolutionary descriptions of reality is Dawkins. Despite my
   misgivings about his "quest" over the past 15 years or so, he
   was once a respected biologist [and still is for many]. Yet,
   because of his background perhaps, like a guy with only a
   hammer, EVERYTHING he described was via evolutionary terms. It
   works for him. It's how he thinkgs. But one can take things too
   far and he does sometimes.