We hear much talk today about "consciousness explained" or the "selfish gene." These have become fashionable pop culture scientific explanations of the implications of human evolution from Daniel Dennett to Richard Dawkins. But their claims are not only hyper-reductionist, but seem like an anthropogenic sleight of hand.

If one takes Alfred N. Whitehead and Conrad Waddington's work in *The Nature of Life,* for example then the "epigenetic landscape" has to be considered before I can address these more refined aspects of existence. I need to provide an account or philosophy of organism in order to deal with a gene, consciousness, or whatever otherwise my claims will be wholly abstract. Why should we take seriously thinkers who offer only snapshots or puzzle pieces of Nature that they pass off or present as the completed or ultimate story to the mystery?