So what? That's one of his hobby-horses. But he's not a scientist, and to claim that his musings on the matter are in any way representative of "Neo-Darwinist" scientists is dishonest.
Some don’t believe Dawkins to be a ‘scientist’
So what? Because Wilson thinks Dawkins is more of a science writer than a scientist, that means the thoughts of a novelist are representative of scientists? How does that follow?
along with ‘after-the-fact’ stories.
Any attempt to figure out why things are the way they are is an "after-the-fact" story. The theory of solar system formation is an after-the-fact story. The notion that the continents used to be all jammed together and have since drifted apart is an after-the-fact story. Heck, Genesis is an after-the-fact story. It's not really much of a criticism.