In this paper the impact of adaptationism and genocentrism critique on the development of evolutionary theory in the past half century is examined. This critique was personified in R.C. Lewontin and S.J. Gould attack on sociobiology of E.O. Wilson and R. Dawkins. The conceptual reconstruction of the Modern Synthesis, undertaken by modern supporters of the “Expanded Synthesis” M. Pigliucci and G. Muller, can be reformulated in terms of adaptationism and genocentrism. Thus, adaptationism and genocentrism critique still guides the development of evolutionary theory in the 21st century
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That’s why biologization of the humanities and development of neurosciences and neurocomputing presupposes taking into account changes in evolutionary theory. Critique of adaptationism is an important part of the modern scientific critique of Darwinism. History of the critique of adaptationism is intertwined with history of sociobiology. This circumstance is embodied by the longstanding confrontation between evolutionary dissidents R.C. Lewontin an S.J. Gould on the one hand and sociobiologists E.O. Wilson and R. Dawkins on the other hand. Meanwhile Soviet Union had its own sociobiological project by V.P. Efroimson. This project was underdeveloped for political reasons. It’s merits were discussed mainly in the context of nature-nurture debate. Among Russian-speaking critique of adaptationism in sociobiology works of ethologist E.N. Panov are worth of special consideration.
The commented famous work by S.J. Gould and R.C. Lewontin is crucial not only to sociobiology critique but to polemics on evolutionary theory in general. Reflection provoked by Gould and Lewontin’s paper in the field of philosophy of biology enables to clarify the relation between the adaptationist program and biological reductionism.