Once our brains evolved and we became sentient beings and could choose for ourselves what to do, we gained control over the evolution process and can now decide how to evolve based on our own moral decisions. But it’s pretty clear there isn’t a bases for these moral decisions without borrowing from social evolution (unless you want to admit to the alternative of borrowing your moral behavior from society’s Judeo-Christian values) which he rejects.
I thought it sad that he strips the purpose of flowers for his six-year-old daughter, reducing their purpose to replicating their DNA. Thus breaking the relationship between us and the environment. Each of us is on our own, with our own purpose, nothing was made for us to be enjoyed by us.

Self-involved and self-centered. We can choose to rise above this model but where do we go from here? And what if we choose not to? Who is to say what is the better path? What is the criteria we can use to determine “better?”
It’s smart of the atheists to move away from social Darwinism, it’s not very attractive as Dawkins demonstrates by reading from Bradbury (sounded a little like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
(via)