Sure, in any direction consistent with an outmoded materialism. And how sweeping grandeur in that vision of life is entailed?
There’s no need to formally revisit the Modern Synthesis, argues Douglas Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, because evolutionary theory is flexible enough to incorporate well-substantiated new ideas as they arise. “I think the evolutionary synthesis has already been extending itself almost continually for the last few decades,” he says. “I’m not saying that there’s nothing interesting [in the Extended Synthesis]. I just think the self-conscious labeling of it as a new point of view or a challenge to the old, most people don’t buy.”
Most dare not buy any new approaches. No as long as they can stumble to the pay wicket through a mass of contradictions and contrary evidence.
Nothing can contradict a poorly supported idea, of little substance to begin with, and fixed on place by a solid block of iron rice bowls. Nothing but facts, which matter little in an environment where students must pay for this guy’s textbooks.
2 Replies to “He said it: Should evolutionary theory evolve?”
I don’t understand the riff about “rice bowls”.
Chairman Mao’s promise to avert famine, for the masses of China through steady sure productive employment, based on an old Chinese idiom.
From the just linked, Richard Lindzen brought it into current English usage to refer specifically to the Govt- research-policy- ideology nexus and the resulting sure thing science jobs on the condition of keeping within the sheep pen of the reigning orthodoxy. To publish rather than perish, stay on the reservation!
Betrayed, in China, in the infamous Great Leap Forward and economic chaos leading to famine, costing 36 – 45 million lives by wiki’s report. (A good slice of the 100 million ghosts I often refer to.)
The science jobs iron rice bowl in our day is noticeably cracking, and will soon enough shatter.
GEM of TKI