Dawkins more than any other ‘scientist’ has systematically confused the issue of evolution in the perpetuation ad infinitum of the false theory of natural selection. It is almost unbelievable that this reign of orthodoxy has gone on as long as it has. In the process the conservative religious think tanks in the US have stolen a march on the whole game and left a shambles of darwinism. And yet even now the ‘Dawkins’ paradigm continues unchecked.
The question of evolution requires a new perspective on science and the reality is that the development of life doesn’t yet fit into any rubric given by science.
The evolution of man is especially confusing when taken in the context of darwinism and has produced a complex fake science of evolutionary psychology. The basic mistake is so obvious to outsiders, yet so difficult for scientists, that we must wonder at the effect of science education: the evolution of man must resolve issues of ‘values’ beyond the realm of facts. The attempt to override this with theories mechanizing ethical behavior is an especially wrong-headed search for mechanical simplicity.
And the treatment of altruism in this regime is especially noxious, and clearly an aspect of the ideological misuse of theories of evolution.
The evolution of homo sapiens (in the context of the equal mysteries of homo erectus) is confounded by the need to explain the parallel and synchronous emergence of hypercomplex submodules of language, consciousness (in a series of its modulations), ethical behavior, art and creativity, and most controversially the ‘soul’ and the belief in its existence.
The slow evolution paradigm surely fails completely here. These complexities had to emerge in some sort of ‘speciation’ mega-event (often called the ‘great explosion’) due to the interactions of the separate entities. A good example is the way linguistic arts like poetry suggest the co-evolution of language and aesthetic forms like song, and poetry. The whole Darwin paradigm in any case is completely incompetent in such a difficult nexus of evolutionary givens. There seem to be a series of these transitions: the onset of life, the onset of the Cambrian and/or the onset of animals, and the emergence of the primates up to man.
We have frequently suggested the relevance of our stream and sequence model in which evolution shows two levels, the onset of more complex forms, and the simpler microevolution of these givens of the higher level of innovation. We can see how one level evolution constantly confuses biologists who confuse the two levels.
But in the original statement of evolution by Lamarck these two levels were clearly distinguished (his theory of adaptation is something else) and they are indispensable to correct explanation.
Although the macro model of WHEE is slightly different, as far as we know, in its focus on civilization, its study can help to understand the way two ‘evolutions’ macro and micro can operate together. This macro/micro distinction immediately clarifies the confusions of theory applied to world history and the obvious suspicion is that the same is true for earlier evolution.
But we have to suspect that the ‘macro model’ of WHEE is telling us something about what we miss with purely genetic evolution. The evolution of man we suspect is more than genetics: it is the evolution of a series of situations that move with the genetics. This has to be true in one way: the ‘situation’ of ethical action/evolution is not likely reflected in the genetics alone. The situation in question is replicated in the history of culture emerging. We can hardly say how that works.
In general we suspect that the model of WHEE is really a variant of the real theory of human evolution: the genetics and ‘core situations’ always coevolved and, further, we could eventually test this if we could see if the history of man in civilization shows a correlate genetic emergentism (epigenetic?). The latter is controversial and has never been a direct claim of mine, but in general the context of evolution and its ‘situations’ must be more complicated than what we have now. The evolution of man is still more complicated due to the way ‘free agency’ must evolve in tandem with everything else: this requires an alteration, perhaps, of directly acting macroevolution alternating on/off to allow a micro phase of ‘free agency’ to carry out the potential produced.
I think we are very far from a theory of human evolution for these reasons.