Liz Cheney: in deep gratitude Like me, Leslie Cannold is deeply grateful for Liz Chaney right now — you know, the way she’s speaking truth to fruitcakery. Liz Cheney is my hero. On positions of policy, I disagree with her almost 100% of the time, but I see her as one of the first moral heroes of this millennia. A highly principled woman willing and able to set aside every one of her personal interests to do what’s right for her country.
Thanks for the pointer to Buranyi on evolutionary biology and whether there's a need for an "extended evolutionary synthesis". Indeed, it's a fair overview -- describes honestly the positions of different participants.
But what on earth induced you to call Dawkins a "media savvy blowhard"? No such thing -- he's a really significant scientist. Probably the two most important extensions since the "modern synthesis" of the 1930s are both down to Dawkins. (Gene's eye view, and extended phenotype.)
Since Dawkins had the temerity to write some home truths about religion, there's been a sustained campaign to paint him as somehow a nasty personality. A common strategy, when you can't argue with the substance. Don't be misled by that.
(And for what it's worth, I'm on the side of what Buranyi calls the traditionalists. The complications cited by the wannabe revolutionaries are mostly not new, are not excluded by the modern synthesis, and are just complications or elaborations you would go into depending how important they were in particular situations. For example developmental plasticity -- it's just nonsense to say this doesn't get a mention in undergrad level teaching.)
Thanks for the pointer to Buranyi on evolutionary biology and whether there's a need for an "extended evolutionary synthesis". Indeed, it's a fair overview -- describes honestly the positions of different participants.
But what on earth induced you to call Dawkins a "media savvy blowhard"? No such thing -- he's a really significant scientist. Probably the two most important extensions since the "modern synthesis" of the 1930s are both down to Dawkins. (Gene's eye view, and extended phenotype.)
Since Dawkins had the temerity to write some home truths about religion, there's been a sustained campaign to paint him as somehow a nasty personality. A common strategy, when you can't argue with the substance. Don't be misled by that.
(And for what it's worth, I'm on the side of what Buranyi calls the traditionalists. The complications cited by the wannabe revolutionaries are mostly not new, are not excluded by the modern synthesis, and are just complications or elaborations you would go into depending how important they were in particular situations. For example developmental plasticity -- it's just nonsense to say this doesn't get a mention in undergrad level teaching.)