So now you too agree that “Neo-Darwinism cannot deliver answers, because its vision of biology is fundamentally flawed”?
“So now you too agree that “Neo-Darwinism cannot deliver answers, because its vision of biology is fundamentally flawed”?”
—Ah, I did miss that. I was paying closer attention to the text in the boxes that he was commenting on. Another reason I probably missed that – is that I don’t see anywhere where the article describes any “fundamental flaws” in neo-Darwinism. The sentence is also a non-sequitur. It’s at the end of a section talking about problems of reductionism in genetics – but although many biologists may be guilty of reductionism, there’s nothing inherently reductionist about neo-Darwinism. The stuff leading up to that sentence was talking about simplistic approaches to genetics – but what on earth does that have to do with evolution or Darwinism? It would make more sense to blame Mendel or Mendelism (although that’d be silly too), with the idea of “a gene for this” and “gene for that”. Why or how would things have been different if neo-Darwinism didn’t exist? Of course our early approaches to genetics was going to be overly simple; he may as well write a pretentious condescending article on the simplistic approach scientists had at the start of the 20th century regarding atomic theory.