I think we can say that “Darwinism”, or TOE as originally presented, was incomplete. The key idea that “selection happens naturally” is still true, but there is much more to evolution that we now understand.
re: Evolutionary Psychology
Charles Darwin was also an early contributor to the new field of psychology, where his ideas have been discarded as wrong. You can’t win them all! 
It’s you who doesn’t understand Dawkins and Gould and the dispute between them re. the impact of evolution on human morality. The Dawkins school of thought holds to genetic determinism, that our behaviour has been shaped by natural selection. Gouldians (also sometimes termed neo-Lamarckists) hold that our morality evolves through culture and is progressive. Pioneering French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a theist, believed that evolution is progressive, with an inner drive toward perfection implanted in organisms by God known as orthogenesis. For Lamarck, like Gould, we have complete control over our morality which is progressive. Hegel was also a theist, his view of evolution influenced by Lamarck. Marx, although an atheist, was influenced by Hegel (Marxist/Hegelianism), and also had a highly progressive view of evolution in relation to our morality. For Marx humanity is evolving towards perfection, and there is no definable human nature as it’s in constant flux. Gould was politically Marxist. This is still a controversial issue, my study of the evidence has convinced me that human nature has been shaped by natural selection. As for neutral theory, the scientific consensus still holds to natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution and that it has impacted human behaviour. Re Dawkins, Gould, and Lamarck you’re the one who clearly doesn’t understand them.
Niamh, do you realize that you are conversing with working biologists here?
I appreciate your contribution.
I do not see why selection and culture must be, or even can be, mutually exclusive. Both are woven into the tapestry of our existence.
Do you know that Nobel prize winning cytologist and biochemist Christian de Duve has written a book called The Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity. He’s an atheist, and like leading evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson ( who wrote the introduction) believes that the impact of natural selection on human nature gave rise to what he calls ‘the myth’ of original sin by the writers of Genesis, whom he considers to have been very insightful into human nature, but had they known the science would have accepted its explanation. Original sin is in our genes. The book explores how, now that we know how natural selection has impacted on human nature, we can use the knowledge to devise measures to overcome its deleterious impact, even if it means going against local and personal interests. He fears we will drive ourselves to extinction.
Btw, in my book I go deeply into philosophical views on human nature before drawing my conclusions. And I argue that the striking similarity between the Darwinian and Christian accounts of human nature is not a coincidence, that science is actually providing empirical support for a doctrine of revelation. I also argue that while knowledge is certainly power, we will need grace to overcome our moral handicap, and Jesus shows the way. I also argue that science thinking it can solve the issues is dangerous, as E.O. Wilson and others think drugs and genetic engineering must be part of the solution, which could be disastrous and lead to a dystopian future. I hope I’m right!
And of course natural selection and culture are not mutually exclusive, and the knowledge we have now can be used to change our culture. Richard Dawkins has developed the concept of memes - the cultural equivalent of genes -, units of cultural transmission to help overcome the damage done to our genes
So… eugenics?
Well that’s the big fear! Could lead to a dystopian future. Why the religious input is so important
Gould isn’t a supporter of Larmarckian evolution. Please get that straight. What you describe is not Lamarckian evolution.
An example of Lamarckian evolution would be an animal who constantly stretches its neck to reach leaves higher in a tree. Lamarck thought that this constant stretching of the neck caused offspring to have a longer neck, such as the giraffe. This is not what Gould proposes.
Evolution has nothing to do with economic systems or religious beliefs.
Evolution has nothing to do with economic systems? Hahahaha😂. Wonder what Richard Dawkins’s response would be to that. Re. religion You should read “The Genetics of Original Sin:;The Impact of Natural Selection on the future of Humanity” by Christian de Duve, an agnostic Nobel Prize winning cytologist and biochemist. And as a theologian/moral philosopher my main interest in evolution is its implications for morality, esp Christian morality. As is the case with so many theologians and philosophers. So you dismiss all the books written by theologians on the implications of evolution for morality?! Wow, ignorance is bliss
Yes I give the giraffe example in my book. And I made it plain to you that the similarity between Gould and Lamarck is their common belief in moral progress, not mechanisms of evolution. Gould accepts natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, but for him punctuated equilibrium is the main mechanism of evolution, not the transmission of acquired characteristics as per Lamarck. And I also made it clear that for Gould our morality is culturally driven not biologically determined. The big contemporary evolutionary question and the most important one is whether we are genetically determined morally, or have full rational control over our moral evolution. I won’t be responding to you again, as you are not knowledgeable enough on these issues
Al Gore is not climate change and climate change is not Al Gore.
Evolution is not Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins is not evolution.
What Richard Dawkins thinks simply doesn’t matter.
Who cares? What Richard Dawkins thinks has been largely irrelevant to the actual practice of evolutionary biology for quite some time now.
The fact that Dawkins and Gould were highly public figures makes it seem like their disagreements were of far more scientific importance than they actually were.
Dawkins is a recognised expert on evolutionary biology and ethology. An Oxford professor, bestselling author. So how come he attracts so much respect and interest if his opinions don’t matter? You are talking absolute nonsense.
I wonder if a missing part of this conversation is that @Niamh_Middleton’s comments seem mostly directed towards the opinions of Gould and Dawkins regarding socio-cultural and moral evolution, which may not be tightly correlated with what evolutionary biologists study in the lab?
No. The key problem here is a misunderstanding of the nature of authority in science.
This might help a bit: Science and Authority – Adventist Today
I’m an academic. I know which evolutionary biologists are highly respected in their fields. And I know what the scholarly consensus on the main mechanism of evolution is. And are you saying that scientists like Christian de Duve who is a Nobel prize winner does not have authority? Or a genius like E.O. Wilson? To mention just two. Also, philosophers of science like Popper, Kuhn and Ruse are very helpful as regards discerning the truth of scientific theories and new scientific paradigms.
You are and I appreciate your contributions. I mean no disrespect.
Nobel Laureates (widely appreciated among scientists) often make silly statements outside their expertise, as is usually the case when they make pronouncements about evolution in areas that are rightly interdisciplinary.
E.O. Wilson was a great biologist, but Consilience was a serious wrong turn, so much so that there have been books written about how bad it was. One of those books is in our mission and values:
Shaping Science with Rhetoric by Leah Ceccarelli. Dr. Ceccarelli is a professor of rhetoric, specializing n the rhetoric of science. This book articulates pragmatic principles in building rhetorical bridges between disciplines to foster collaboration and understanding.
She uses his book as a negative case study in explaining science to the larger interdisciplinary community. He was certainly a brilliant scientist, but as he extends outside evolution to explain its relationship to other fields, he does a great deal of damage.
That would take a book, why I wrote one. His opinions are based on his data, and the arguments based on it. Why he is so highly respected.
Does anyone in Peaceful Science accept that natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution and is a cornerstone of modern biology? Despite objections and arguments against, that’s still the scientific consensus. I am of course aware that there is a degree of intra-scientific controversy about the main mechanism of evolution. And religious/creationist objection to any form of evolution. In my RC tradition, there are theologians who believe in Darwinian evolution , and others who take the Teilhardian view that evolution occurs in a directional goal-driven way. Teilhard was a proponent of Lamarckian orthogenesis, and asserted that paradise is at the end, not the beginning of time (the Omega Point). He accepted Darwinism in respect to biology, and the synthetic model, but made Lamarckian style arguments for the cultural evolution of morality.