Is the theory of natural selection a Victorian relic, about to be replaced by a new science of cultural evolution? Or does the promised paradigm shift provide no real challenge to Darwin’s theory?
In the comments to a UD story, a reader offers some excerpts from this program:
Four evolutionists. Totally confused, contradictory, double-speak.
Zanna Clay: “Nobody in evolutionary research is arguing that we should abandon Darwin. We just need to expand our appreciation of other effects that weren’t explained by the Modern Synthesis.”
Interviewer: “empathy in animals, for example, there must be a gene for that”.
ZC: “But nobody is saying that. I don’t know any scientist who would say that.”
Pigliucci: “Oh, I do. I won’t mention names – Richard Dawkins”.
ZC: “Well, I disagree with those kinds of scientists. I mean, it’s not what most people in the field are debating”.
Interviewer: “It’s the ghost of Richard Dawkins”.
ZC: Yes, it’s a bit of a PR crisis.
Interviewer: It is a PR crisis.
ZC: Anyone seriously studying these processes theories knows that like it’s it it like – theories of evolution would never dismiss the role environment and development play in shaping these behaviors.
It’s not a PR crisis. It’s a collision with reality.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham and commenter Silver Asiatic.
See also: The Salem Hypothesis Is True, And That’s Great For ID
Consciousness: Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci Skates Around The Main Problems (He’s in the vid and was also one of the The Altenberg 16, who began to question Darwinism (though he seems now to want to try to rescue it)
Follow UD News at Twitter!