There is some confusion over the debate topic and terminology it seems. The article is about the attempt to silence other points of view by people who themslves hold to a rigid weltanschauung that they equate with “science.” Furthermore, the ID debate is one of origins principally, not evolution. Thirdly, evolution itself covers a huge amount of areas, theories, opinions. Most of the time, the term is with reference to macro evolution theory- the metamutation from one species to another, not micro-adjustments in genetic structures.
That being said, New European makes the same mistake that science author David Mendell was criticized for by another evolutionist, Jerry Coyne:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
