But that is ridiculous.
No, we don’t mean New Scientist-type ridiculous.
We mean serious ridiculous. Stuff we can’t just ignore.
Whatever happened to the days when we could raise money just by fronting all the nonsense you people put forward? It’s fundraising season!
Look. We’ll even give the New Scientist employees a bonus if they can come up with another completely risible idea.
But now look at how far they may have strayed beyond the selfish gene: From Kevin Laland,
For more than 150 years it has been one of science’s most successful theories, but we need to rethink evolution for the 21st century
Yet all scientific theories must incorporate new ideas and findings, and evolution is no exception. In recent years, our understanding of biology has taken huge strides. Advances in genetics, epigenetics and developmental biology challenge us to think anew about the relationship between genes, organisms and the environment, with implications for the origins of diversity and the direction and speed of evolution. In particular, new findings undermine the idea, encapsulated by the “selfish gene” metaphor, that genes are in the driving seat. Instead, they suggest that organisms play active, constructive roles in their own development and that of their descendants, so that they impose direction on evolution.
Some biologists are trying to shoehorn the new knowledge into traditional evolutionary thinking. Others, myself included, believe a more radical approach may be required. We don’t deny the roles of genetic inheritance and natural selection, but think we should look at evolution in a markedly different way. It is time for the theory of evolution to evolve.
No, no, no, New Scientists!!! Keep investing your pensions in Darwin’s flying saucer factory!
How will our ID community finish our fabulous Aloha Dreams Retirement Condo development in the South Pacific if you earnest toads don’t get back to promoting some ridiculous evolution theory and getting U.S courts to force U.S. taxpayers to fund it for the schools?
Then all we need do is send out fundraising letters to the stung taxpayers, right? It’s always worked for us in the past… do we have to cut you in? … has it come to that? We must cut the toads in?
We need to call a board meeting! Should we put more money into evolutionary psychology to draw these people off? Great, a discipline without subject! Astrobiology works too. And there’s always the multiverse…
Seriously, here’s the Laland science paper we should pay attention to. More on that paper later.
See also: What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!