Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Evolution and the Meaning of Life

312 BULLY FOR BRONTOSAURUS
fact the truth is a mixture of both: a little bit of Chance, a little bit of Ever.
That's Darwin's dangerous idea, like it or not.
CHAPTER 10: Gould's self-styled revolutions, against adaptationism, gradualism,
and extrapolationism, and for "radical contingency," all evaporate,
their good points already firmly incorporated into the modern synthesis, and
their mistaken points dismissed. Darwin's dangerous idea emerges
strengthened, its dominion over every corner of biology more secure than
ever.
CHAPTER 11: A review of all the major charges that have been leveled at
Darwin's dangerous idea reveals a few surprisingly harmless heresies, a few
sources of serious confusion, and one deep but misguided fear: if Darwinism
is true of us, what happens to our autonomy?
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Controversies Contained
1. A CLUTCH OF HARMLESS HERESIES
/ find on re-reading it that the picture it presents is close to the one I would
paint if I were to start afresh, and write a wholly new book.
—JOHN MAYNARD SMITH, introduction, 1993
edition of his 1958 book, The Theory of
Evolution
Before turning in part III to an examination of Darwin's dangerous idea
applied to humanity (and the humanities), let's pause to take stock of our
survey of controversies within biology proper. Gould has spoken of the
"hardening" of the modern synthesis, but also voiced his frustration about
how the modern synthesis keeps shifting in front of his eyes, making it
difficult to get off a good shot. Its defenders keep changing the story, coopting
revolutionaries by incorporating the good points they make into the
synthesis. How secure is the modern synthesis—or its unnamed successor, if
you think it has changed too much to keep its old title? Is the current
embodiment of Darwinism too hard or too soft? Like Goldilocks' favorite
bed, it has proven to be just right: hard where it had to be, and compliant
about those issues that are open for further investigation and debate.
To get a good sense of what is hard and what is soft, we may stand back a
bit and survey the whole field. Some people would still love to destroy the
credentials of Darwin's dangerous idea, and we can help them by pointing to
controversies on which they needn't waste their energies, since no matter how
they come out, Darwin's idea will survive intact or strengthened. And then
we can also point out those hard, fixed points which, if destroyed, would
truly overthrow Darwinism—but they are fixed for good reasons, and are
about as likely to budge as the Pyramids.
Let's consider first some tempting heresies that would not overthrow