Dear Cat,
Regarding your questions:
1) Can one believe in evolution without believing the selfish gene theory? ie without believing that ultimately all living things are selfish?
PB: The selfish gene hype has been postulate by somebody who doesn't understand anything about genes, a zoologist. Although this zoologist is already backing away from his selfish genes, he is still under the impression that 97% of the genome is junk. In the 1970s when we didn't know anything, it was a nice try. However, in the meantime science has proven evolutionism (from microbe to man) to be wrong. After 150 years of scrutiny NDT should have been proven and there should be a workable origin of life hypothesis. There isn't. Therefore the hype should be replaced by something else that better describes what we actually observe. My guess would be that it will not happen. They will keep it up, and propagate this outdated view by twisting and turning facts according to evo-interpretations. It is pseudoscience.
2) How would the above theory explain our love of beauty, not of people (i expect i know how it would explain that!) but of other things like flowers, etc - and of our love of music - and of the insights and feelings gained from music, as well as insights gained from quiet contemplation? If passing on our genes was our sole purpose - why would any of this be necessary? or is it that when we become fully concious, we really do transcend our biology?
PB: The hype of evolutionism is NOT explanantory. It merely tells stories.
3) also how does it explain our use of contraceptives? if we really are automatons here to perpetuate our genes, why do we use contraception? Why do we choose not to have children?
PB: Incomprehensable, isn't it? Ever heard of the swimreflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn? Yeah, you better believe we used to be aquatic apes
4) why do we ask questions beginning with 'why?' - if science can only explain the 'how'?
PB: Exactly my point. Evolutionism should be replaced by the GUToB.
Best wishes,
Peter