Well, this is from an eyewitness:
In recent years the American scientific establishment has sought to shut off debate about neo-Darwinian theory by playing its trump card: the contention that the theory of intelligent design is inherently unscientific and thus cannot even be considered. Basically, the scientific establishment says, “Neo-Darwinian theory is the only scientific theory we have, so we just have to stick with it.”
So it was refreshing last month to hear Dr. Sudip Parikh, new CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), when asked if he felt that theorizing about design in nature was unscientific. Interestingly, he did not expressly rule out design as a scientific theory. Instead, he said that science must follow the evidence wherever it leads. His remarks were made at an April 5 virtual Headliners event sponsored by the National Press Club.Herman B. Bouma, “AAAS Leader Does Not Rule Out Design, Says Science Must Follow the Evidence” at Evolution News and Science Today
But that’s all that the banned, banished, and censored in this matter ever wanted…
The question re design starts at 48:80.
Of course, Dr. Parikh may be forced to clarify and qualify, to make clear that Darwinism, however implausible in the light of new evidence, occupies a special position as the single greatest idea anyone ever had. But if he even put on the table the idea of following the evidence instead of the demand for assent, he can’t just take it back with no one noticing.
The statement will then have been amended to “wherever that evidence takes them” (in his original formulation) to “wherever that evidence takes them unless it creates doubt about Darwinism as the driving force in nature. We never go there!“
We shall see.
See also: Hybridization is much more common and normal among animals than once thought. Darwinian Ernst Mayr cast doubt on hybridization as an important source of change so for decades few believed it could be. Now, says one researcher, the consensus is that it “is hugely widespread and much more common than was appreciated.” But isn’t hybridization cutting into a lot of the things Darwinism supposedly did?