RE: Lessons from evolutionary biology for Christians and Atheists alike.
First, I love Dawkins, and The Selfish Gene really made me look at the idea of evolution in a whole new light. (I was also introduced to the Necker Cube in his introduction, which is a great graphical example of how different perspectives can make the same thing appear entirely different.)
And yes, people read the title, and they think it's about a gene that makes one selfish, rather than the idea that it's genes themselves which are acting in a way to propagate themselves.
However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect the idea of an "immortal gene" to any immortal soul concept in religion. Here's where I think it has to break down:
I think for most religious folk, the soul is the self. While the physical body ceases to exist, they believe that their "self" - everything "non-physical" that makes you you - is what goes on to paradise or hell for eternity. In fact, if your soul was not your "self", hell wouldn't hold any fear, and heaven wouldn't hold any promise.
But the selfish gene is not in any way like your "self". The main reason for this is that no full genetic code survives the next generation. It's always cut in half, since every child gets half from his mom, and half from his dad. That's why Dawkins calls it "The Selfish Gene" rather than "The Selfish DNA Strand".
I think it's very easy to see why fundamentalist theists are antagonistic toward evolutionary ideas - it's because these ideas contradict religious assumptions.
Good post though!
Lets not stretch the metaphor to far... of course it will break down under detailed scrutiny. The parallel here is simply that the high level principles are similar, and hence why should the other side view the others point of view with such disdain.
Perhaps disdain is unfortunate. However, on one side you have people who believe that their beliefs determine whether or not they spend eternity in heaven or in hell; and they are also tasked with sending as many people as they can to heaven by instilling correct knowledge. This task too determines whether they go to heaven or to hell. These people, then, are very motivated to be antagonistic toward ideas that conflict with their mission. And, based on their premises, rightly so. In fact, I think they should be much more antagonistic to those ideas.
On the other side - the non-theists - you have people who do not have a belief in a god or godly things. It would not make sense for them to grant any intellectual validity to ideas that are anchored in such things. No more than you would grant intellectual validity to a child's belief that Santa will pass him by because he has no chimney. Should we feel "disdain" for this child? Perhaps not. But we should certainly feel disdain for the belief. Or, if not disdain, it would at least be immoral and unintelligent to grant it any benefit of doubt. The only time we should reconsider is if the child grows up, goes exploring the North Pole, and finds a warehouse of elves making toys.
:)