The article is mostly a summary, but then a third party weights in. Go, Georgy Koentges, go!
“There is no such thing as a good or bad gene. It doesn’t work that simply. Genes are used and re-used in different contexts, each of which might have a different overall fitness value for a given organism or a group.”
One thing that bugged me in the article was the writer using “Darwinist.” “Darwinist” is a pejorative and a shibboleth. Dawkins is not a Darwinist. Creationists tend to use that term, in the naive assertion that Charles Darwin is some cult leader or prophet to a belief in evolution, rather than a scientist who advanced human knowledge.
Besides, Dawkins is a Dawkinsist, if anything.
You can’t really blame the writer for ‘Darwinist,’ as it appears only the headline, which is usually written by an editor.
Good call, but i’m dead certain that Darwinist was originally in the text. It seemed that it was about a third of the way into the piece. I probably just screwed up, but…