If the original thesis managed to get published in Science, then it is indeed scientifically acceptable (which is quite different from "accepted by the scientif

If the original thesis managed to get published in Science, then it is indeed scientifically acceptable (which is quite different from "accepted by the scientific community"), and worthy of debate. The fact that it is receiving strong criticism does not mean it should be discarded right away. It simply means that it goes again the mainstream conceptions. When you have studied evolution the computational way --like I did-- you have an idea of how many hidden dynamics and synergies are going on. Evolution is one incredibly complex phenomenon. Truth is we don't understand that well what drives it --yet some of us seem supremely confident in the current mainstream theory (which seems a little too simple to me to account for all I've been witnessing). In the case of Dawkins I suppose that confidence is not entirely unrelated to the fact that he considerably helped to propel that theory to its current acceptance level. Scientists should not cherish their own ideas that much, it's not healthy for scientific progress.