David Sloan Wilson has questioned Richard Dawkins theses on three main points: 1. Complex traits usually evolve by conferring reproductive benefits. Dawkins did never test if human religiosity had been adaptive, nor if it could be today. He'd relied solely on anecdotes. In contrast, by scientifically analyzing religious community teachings and practices i.e. among Jains and Calvinists, Wilson motivated many researchers into the Evolutionary Religious Studies.
2. With Dawkins theory of the "selfish genes", the author had tried to rule out any means of natural selection working on higher orders as individuals - silently dropping Charles Darwin in the process. Together with one of the main founders of modern sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, (not related) David challenged this already widespread dogmatism. Religions turned out to be good testing cases of multilevel selection processes and today terms as "group selection" have been fruitfully brought back into scientific debate.
3. For more than 30 years, laypeople believed in Dawkins "Memes", without any clear definition, any observations, experiments, studies or just testable hypotheses supporting the claim. David was among those who pointed out that this emperor wasn't wearing any clothes - memetics are bringing forth pseudo-scientific "metaphors" as is Intelligent Design.


In his new book "Evolution for Everyone", David incorporated religiosity and religions into his wider, darwinian worldview. To many atheists, agnostics and religious alike he proved that sound science is about respectfully exploring and discussing, not debunking phenomena we have yet to understand from the perspectives of the natural sciences.

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

In a Darwinian sense the organism does not live for itself. Its primary function is not even to reproduce other organisms; it reproduces genes, and it serves as their temporary carrier... Samuel Butler's famous aphorism, that the chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg, has been modernized: The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA. (Sociobiology 1)altruism . . . [is] self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others. (ibid)

David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion--and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him--is of no more scientific interest than semantic double talk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E.O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error [that the replicator concept provides an argument against group selection]...I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them. D.S. Wilson should apologize. E.O. Wilson, being the gentleman that he is, probably will.

Gracious! What a hierarchical guy! Dawkins acts as if he is the No. 2 monkey, kowtowing to the No. 1 monkey (Ed) while dishing it out to the No. 3 monkey (me)! As Ed commented to me after reading Dawkins' comment, "What does he think--that you slipped me a Mickey