Remember “Reviewing James Shapiro’s book, Darwinist admits: Growing number of gene scientists unconvinced by Darwinism”?
Heck, that was only last night, folks, … And now this:
Volume 6, Number 1, 89-102, DOI: 10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis
David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber
Abstract: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
A friend is sending us the paper tomorrow.
Does this kind of thing explain why the Darwin lobby is opening a branch office in climate change? What people say in Canada is, if you wait long enough, it’s bound to warm up. So if the Darwin lobby is in the climate change business, they will at least get to be right some time. Maybe they need a bit of that just now.
Follow UD News at Twitter!