Responsibility for Nature versus Gene-Centred View on Evolution by Richard Dawkins

Through the indication and criticism of unacceptable consequences that follow the concept of genocentrism, as propagated by Dawkins, the author has endeavoured to show that it cannot be regarded as a justified paradigm of understanding the world. The same empirical facts can be interpreted in different ways. Dawkins sees the nature as existing for the genes’ benefit, whereas he regards the existence of all other organisms, including man, as subordinate to it. Non-reductionist  vision of man and other living organisms must be, however, connected with another, nongenocentric perspective of explaining biological facts, including such phenomena as symbiosis, both reciprocated and unreciprocated altruism, and other. Genocentrism can be perceived as interpretative obstacle precluding their appropriate understanding. Much more justified seems to be the individualist centric paradigm, in the light of which – to tell the truth – not all that is going on in nature can be explained yet, but which does  not require, as opposed to genocentrism, resignation from holism or seeing man as being free in his nature and responsible for themselves and the world.