Has it occurred to you (or the author of the above) that perhaps the reason for the lack of response is that what the article says is true?
… no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but … everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first-cousins.
Well, regardless of the semantic argument about numbers, the point is that an organism is 'hard coded' genetically or however, to do what is good 'for the species'. This is obviously false as the many examples of criminals, sociopaths, and Clintonites show quite well. Their morals are quite explicitly 'if you do not get caught, it's okay.
Dawkins’s peculiar vision of us as mere vehicles for purposive genes is of his own making. It is not a tenet of Darwinism.
Stove must be saying something right when your 'refutation" of Stove needs to bash the prime living Neo-Darwinist in an attempt to refute him. If Dawkins is an idiot (as your author and I agree) then we certainly must throw away all his excuses for evolution out the window must we not??????