Further to Not this again: Darwin’s fans claim they are not Darwinists, asked to define themselves, many will primly claim that they should be called “evolutionary biologists.”
That amounts to tacitly admitting that no one who questions their current ideology on evolution is likely to avoid suspicion or persecution in the field, despite achievements.
Even the great Carl Woese, who first identified the archaea, was under the gun. He spoke of the “hegemony of the culture of Darwin.” The strain was evident for Lynn Margulis (endosymbiosis pioneer) as well. In these matters, science writer Suzan Mazur has been invaluable.
Actually, most of the creative evolutionary biologists I read about belong to dissident groups (the Altenberg 16, for example) that doubt the tenured faculty orthodoxy around Darwinian evolution—which is the likely reason that the benchwarmers don’t want to discuss it.
For a classic benchwarmer position, hear the Texas Darwin lobby explain why only the dead orthodoxy be taught, in case the kids start to doubt:
From the “Shut up, Texas losers, and pay” files: Why Texas students cannot know about self-organization theory
“If it ain’t broke … ” Cricket shows no change in 100 million years. Nor does Texan School Lobby from New Dark Ages
See also Craig Venter denies common descent —Dawkins incredulous
We can have the “call me an evolutionary biologists” or we can have advances. What a tough decision.
Follow UD News at Twitter!