Yuku free message boards

Just wanted to throw in my view of the criticisms of Dawkins' viewpoint on evolution. There are actually two separate camps which both criticize Dawkins, but for very different reasons. The first is the school of evolutionary biology following the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould, placing the emphasis on "macro"-evolution. These biologists make several claims about evolution, most notably: 1) evolution goes through long periods of stagnation followed by short (short by evolutionary terms) periods of rapid change and 2) that many of the major features of evolution are not the result of selective adaptation alone, but the combined action of several different forces which are more stochastic in nature. Dawkins has argued that where Gould's theories are revolutionary, they are not supported by the evidence, and where they are supported by the evidence, they are not revolutionary. Dawkins points out that stochastic proceses do have a place in evolution, but that the ultimate agent (the crane to use his term, if you've read The Blind Watchmaker) of evolution is selection, and that selection occurs at the level of the gene. Therefore, it makes sense, when talking about evolution, to talk about genes rather than about livers or panthers or ecosystems. There are several examples in modern molecular biology of "parasitc" DNA, which serves no purpose to the host but merely replicates itself within the host cells. This is what Dawkins means when he talks about the "selfish" gene, the fact that genes don't really "care" one way or another about organisms, so long as they make lots of copies of themselves.

The second group of critics to Dawkins' ideas are not evolutionary biologists, but lay-people who are for some reason offended that we evolved to be anything but good neighbours, kind, helpful people who are not predisposed to prejudice or malice. Dawkins, and many of his supporters, have made the obvious leap from biology to psychology, reasoning that since the human brain is an organ and evolved for a specific purpose (mainly hunting gazelles on the savannah), it makes sense to look at it from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychology seeks to put human behaviours in a biological context. Reactions to this have been very strong, as people now see the mind as their last refuge from the "unweaving"..."Scientists have told me my echinacea won't help, my star-sign doesn't matter, there are no helpful spirits in the wings, but they can't tell me I don't have a soul, since that's a purely introspective judgement." The new disciplines of cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology have started to assault that last stronghold of peoples' illusions about what they want the world to be like (as opposed to the much more impressive way it really is.)

Both camps are opposed to Dawkins' "reductionism". Personally I find it very strange that reductionism has acquired such a negative connotation, when in its pure sense it should be pretty much neutral. Another word with which it is often coupled for doubly pejorative effect is "deterministic". Odd. One great book on the topic is Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves"...check it out if you have the time.