[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't know what his politics are, but he does make this statement in his answer. From the first sentence of the citation, it apparently applies to the current "Darwinists", e.g. Sternberg.

Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)."

He was talking about Gould and Clive Bradley. They both made statements about Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" without apparently reading it. The second part says that no matter what his political motivations might be, he will follow the science wherever it leads, based on the evidence;
"...nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)". This only increases my respect for his scientific integrity.


" Happy and blessed Thanksgiving to you."

And to you and yours! :)

[AndrewC]

No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)."

You will note that this comment is made about this "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" . Thus he accepts it not because of politics, but because of the science. Why does he have to deny politics enters in to the situation? Because, it does often figure into the situation as in the case of Sterberg.